Thoughts on how to really defeat terrorism- an essay from the heart

[Kashyapa]

I'll arrive at my point in a roundabout sort of way.

When I was 11 my dad got me a really kick-ass pellet gun. Black, evil, shiny. Could absolutely obliterate a plastic army man. Accurate as hell, too. I could place ten pellets in the center of a target at thirty paces. I had a lot of fun with it. It made me feel powerful, like a badass. One day, I was playing with it. My parents were gone, my mom at work, my dad doing something else. I lived in the forest, in a quiet little town right in the foothills of the front range in Colorado, and there were a lot of squirrels around. On a black, evil little impulse, I turned my weapon on one of them, took aim, and fired. I blew it straight off the branch it was sitting on, flipping end over end, until it hit the ground. I felt like the s--t. Great white hunter drops his kill. Boo ya!
So I walked over to inspect my handiwork, swaggering in the way only a little boy can. I knelt down and looked at the squirrel. My pellet had taken it in the haunches, and exited the flank. Blood was pouring out of the ragged wound. The squirrel was still moving, squirming in agony, its bright little black eyes still open, still conscious, still feeling the godawful pain it must have been feeling, staring up at this gigantic curious thing above it in shock and fear and holy s--t what the hell happened to me I'm dying!!!! And I watched it die like that, terrified and alone, its killer kneeling over it. And I became the squirrel, imagined the pain so vividly my own stomach knotted and flared, imagined its uncomprehending last seconds. I spent the next hour sobbing uncontrollably, saying "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry" over and over again. Because it felt the same amount of pain I would have if I had been walking down the street, minding my own business and attending to my own life, and suddenly a chunk of metal the size of a pop can had zipped through the air at 200 mph and hit me in the ass. It felt the same incomprehension, the same panic, the same terror. I realized that the squirrel was no different than I, that I was an animal just like it.

Just yesterday, I was aimlessly websurfing and came across a site called "Information Clearinghouse", a sort of anti-establishment news service. I scrolled down. A picture flashed into view. A little boy's face, eleven or twelve, contorted in misery. Olive skin, dark hair. Further. Shoulders. Two shapeless potatoes of white gauze sprouting from them, the amputated stumps of his arms. More. Blackened flesh, scorched like a well-done burger, smeared with white burn cream. A little Iraqi boy named Ali, twelve years old, good at geography although he'd never left his hometown, a big family with a lot of sisters and one brother who all love him very much. A missile had hit his house, and his life changed. All he could talk about to the reporter who came to visit him was that he wanted to go home. He was worried about his arms, not being able to eat and play and enjoy a normal life. You could see the hurt and incomprehension and misery in his face, plain as day, just like that little squirrel I wasted half a lifetime ago. I cried, bitter tears burning my eyes and my throat aching. "I'm sorry, little buddy," I said to him, to myself. Ali deserved what he got just like the squirrel did- that is to say, not at all. His life will be forever changed, if he doesn't die from septicemia in a totally unprepared hospital, suffering from injuries that a high-tech US burn ward would have trouble treating effectively.

I don't think that anything meaningful, anything material separates me from Ali or the squirrel. Just beings, capable of feeling joy and pain and everything else, going about their lives, trying to survive and be happy and at peace. Life is life is life. No separation, no dominion, no separate rights. We feel the same pain, we dream the same dreams. Ali loves his mother just like I love mine. I'd be just as miserable as Ali is if I had been burned and my arms blown off. The squirrel might not have the mental capacity to love in the same way that a human might, but I'm sure the basic essence is there. It feels the same pain I do. Culture, nation, race, species, morality- all meaningless distinctions that seek to emphasize nonexistent divisions. We are all LIFE! We all seek to survive as best we can. We all seek to live and have babies and be happy. Sometimes our culture or our life circumstances lead us into delusion, and our priorities get messed up, and we do awful things. That seed of evil and destruction can be planted in any heart. Evil is in the act. I believe that we all possess the same potential for good and evil, and that when evil is done it is done not out of inherent evil but misdirection and delusion.

The squirrel died because of an arrogant little boy. So might Ali, for the same reason, if one doens't essentially consider him dead already. Just one of thousands of wounded, over a thousand dead, in yet another war that's going to do nothing to achieve a lasting peace. Just another cause, and just another effect, of those meaningless distinctions, and the needless turmoil and hatred. When we go to war, we forget that we're all humans, capable of the same pain, the same bliss, the same joy, the same hatred. Our genes are all the same, just with different ones flipped on and off. We share the same physiology and psychology, yearn for the same things. We all just want to live in peace and be happy and have children and love. When we do things that cause pain, cause suffering, cause death and destruction and maimed little boys, we destroy our ability to be at peace and love and have babies. Death and destruction, even for the purest of motives, beget only more death and destruction. As the saying goes, bombing for peace is like f--king for virginity. War will not create peace in the long run. War will just create more war, as hearts are misdirected by fury and hurt and seek to lash out at those who have hurt them. We cannot bomb the world into being peaceful, and you're living in a dreamworld if you think that's possible. Introducing peace into the world is the only way peace will become a part of the world.

We defend our country, passing draconian laws and fortifying points of entry, lashing out at those who oppose us, hating and fearing and hurting. We oppose force with force, take an eye for an eye, revenge our dead by creating more. Instead of perpetuating the endless cycle, why not try combating hate with love, war with peace? Why do the terrorists hate us? Because for the last hundred years, we've been at nearly endless war, trying to impose what we think is right on the world, sowing the seeds of hate and pain all around us. Don't delude yourself by saying that they "hate that we have a free society". They hate us because of our heavy handedness, our willingness to f--k with other nation's affairs, to create little Alis in the name of our values, to bomb cities and wedding parties. They hate us because we presume that our way is best and that everyone should be like us, because our companies care only for the profit motive, because we have such blatantly deceptive motives for our misbegotten wars.

The only way out is peace. If the entire war budget had been devoted to building universities, schools, infrastructure, and perpetuating love, the world would be a better place. The war hasn't changed anything but a regime. Why not change the minds and hearts of millions? Why not fund AIDS treatment for all the infected poor of Africa? Why not send our nation's youth out to do service work in less fortunate parts of the world? Why not promote good sanitation and medical care? You get out of the world what you put into it. Why not put some peace and goodwill and happiness out into the world for a change? We could take away the reasons that the terrorists hate us. Instead of killing little boys, let's endow scholarships to send them to college and build the third world's educated workforce. Let's promote an open and tolerant and free society. Instead of bulding America into a fortress, let's open it up, and open up our hearts. Because all we are is beings, trying to find a way to survive and prosper. And we all deserve the same chance to do that.

Whew.

[Tony]

I was in a simular situation when I was 11, I shot a squirrel with my pellet gun. It was wounded and kicking around on the ground. Feeling bad that I was causing it pain, I reloaded and shot him in the head. I ended his pain, after that I felt really bad that I killed a defenseless squirrel, I vowed never to shoot another squirrel, and I never have.


That being said.

This essay was nice, and it would be true if we lived in a Disney movie, but peace and education will not rid the world of men like saddam hussien.

[Kashyapa]

YES IT WILL! If it had been practiced in the past, men like Saddam would have never arisen. If we start practicing it now, men like Saddam will never come into being again. Peace will beget peace. Good intentions will beget good intentions.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
YES IT WILL! If it had been practiced in the past, men like Saddam would have never arisen.


How do you know?

Peace will beget peace. Good intentions will beget good intentions.

No it wont. People like me will take advantage of the "peace" and "good intentions". What will you do then?

[jj]

I'm sorry to say that some people don't have that empathetic reaction, and rather rejoice in the pain and agony that they cause. Don't ask me to explain it, because I don't understand that kind of person at all.

There is often very little in the way of reason to be had with such people, who sometimes, unfortunately, have to be physically stopped.

I don't have a perfect solution, it's why I'm pro-military, although anti-action in MOST cases.

It's that strong military that keeps the people who only understand force, power, and might in line.

And as much as we all might wish, there are enough of those in the world.

[Richard G]

YES IT WILL! If it had been practiced in the past, men like Saddam would have never arisen. If we start practicing it now, men like Saddam will never come into being again. Peace will beget peace. Good intentions will beget good intentions.

There are prisons full of murderes, rapist, and child molesters. There are also thousands of murders, rapists, and child molesters on the streets all over the world. No amount of good intentions, pretty flowery pictures, kumbai-ya sing alongs, or group hugs will cure these people.

Your living in la-la land my friend.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
YES IT WILL! If it had been practiced in the past, men like Saddam would have never arisen. If we start practicing it now, men like Saddam will never come into being again. Peace will beget peace. Good intentions will beget good intentions.

Your idea would only work if everyone practiced it, which sadly will never be the case.

There will always be tyrants and there will always be the need to resist them by whatever meants necessary. If we practice "Peace as policy, whatever the cost" now, men like Saddam will eventually rule the earth, as none will oppose them.

Non-violent resistance only works when your enemy has a concience.

[Kashyapa]

Gandhi secured independence in India with nonviolence. Martin Luther King helped end overt racism in our country. Instead of just giving up and whoring ourselves out to the orgy of hate and killing that's overtaking the world, we should at least try. At least some difference could be made. And it would certainly be better than more slaughtered children, wouldn't you say.

[Nephilimn]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
I'll arrive at my point in a roundabout sort of way.
Why do the terrorists hate us? Because for the last hundred years, we've been at nearly endless war, trying to impose what we think is right on the world...
Whew.

I don't understand.

We didn't want to get involved in WWI. Only after Germany declared war on our merchant ships and promised Mexico they would "reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona" - in their proposal for alliance - did we finally enter the 'Europeon's Conflict'.

After the war, the American people and government were perfectly happy going back to our isolationism, which we enjoyed during most of the 19th century, until Japan - who was waging endless war and imposing what they thought was right on the world (or at least their major section of it) by slaughtering and raping millions of innocent civilians, including children - decided to attack the US. This allied us with Great Britain, who was fighting against Germany - who was waging war and imposing what they thought was right on the world (or at least Europe and Western Asia and Northern Africa) by slaughtering and raping millions of innocent civilians, including children.

Now we have been forced onto the world stage. Inevitable.... yes.

After WWII, we were now faced with the USSR, an 'ally' - in the loosest form of the word - from the war, who was waging war and imposing what they thought was right on the world (or at least the 'new' eastern Europe and Asia) by slaughtering and raping millions of innocent civilians, including children.

The Koreon war was 'sanctioned' by the UN, the new League of Nations, and we all know how that ended - or didn't...

Vietnam was a fight to slow communism and the growing tyranny occuring in other southeast asian countries. When we left, Pol Pot was now able to slaughter and rape millions of innocent civilians while imposing what he thought was right on the world, (or at least his little part of it), without fear of retribution from the neighboring 'big bad Americans'.

We bomb Libya after they blow up a commercial airline and train terrorists.

Gulf War I was 'sanctioned' by the UN, and we all know how that one ended - or didn't end.

We bomb Yugoslavia where Milosevic was slaughtering millions while imposing what he thought was right on the world...

We rid the Taliban from Afghanistan only after our civilian structures are attacked and civilians purposely targeted by radical 'muslims' who are raging war - against the civilized world - to impose what they think is right.

We rid the world of yet another dictator, who has slaughtered and raped and tortured millions of his own people while doing what he thinks is right.

What of the rest of the world, in only the last 100 years, who have raged "endless war, trying to impose what they think is right..." If that is the reason, wouldn't terrorist's hate even themselves?

Endless wars have raged since the dawing of man, it will end when the last two humans alive fight it out to the death and only one remains.

A small fraction of innocents get hurt by 'big bad American bombs'; but what of the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that would be: tortured, beaten, raped, mutilated, killed if that dicatator and his psychotic imbeciles were still in charge? Why not mention them? - Or is it that easy not to think of them as long as they are a world away, it doens't affect your favorite TV show being pre-emted for war coverage, and it's not you?

[DrBenway]

Some people are born bad. I know little kids who can't be left alone with animals, else they'll torture them. These children have something wrong with their brains. Not their fault.

You're blessed to have that part of your brain working which causes you to suffer when you see the suffering of others.

[DavidJames]

"when I was 11, I shot a squirrel with my pellet gun...I reloaded and shot him in the head"

"little kids who can't be left alone with animals, else they'll torture them. These children have something wrong with their brains. Not their fault. "

Sometimes additional words aren't necessary.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
I'll arrive at my point in a roundabout sort of way.

When I was 11 my dad got me a really kick-ass pellet gun. Black, evil, shiny. Could absolutely obliterate a plastic army man. Accurate as hell, too. I could place ten pellets in the center of a target at thirty paces. I had a lot of fun with it. It made me feel powerful, like a badass. One day, I was playing with it. My parents were gone, my mom at work, my dad doing something else. I lived in the forest, in a quiet little town right in the foothills of the front range in Colorado, and there were a lot of squirrels around. On a black, evil little impulse, I turned my weapon on one of them, took aim, and fired. I blew it straight off the branch it was sitting on, flipping end over end, until it hit the ground. I felt like the s--t. Great white hunter drops his kill. Boo ya!
So I walked over to inspect my handiwork, swaggering in the way only a little boy can. I knelt down and looked at the squirrel. My pellet had taken it in the haunches, and exited the flank. Blood was pouring out of the ragged wound. The squirrel was still moving, squirming in agony, its bright little black eyes still open, still conscious, still feeling the godawful pain it must have been feeling, staring up at this gigantic curious thing above it in shock and fear and holy s--t what the hell happened to me I'm dying!!!! And I watched it die like that, terrified and alone, its killer kneeling over it. And I became the squirrel, imagined the pain so vividly my own stomach knotted and flared, imagined its uncomprehending last seconds. I spent the next hour sobbing uncontrollably, saying "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry" over and over again. Because it felt the same amount of pain I would have if I had been walking down the street, minding my own business and attending to my own life, and suddenly a chunk of metal the size of a pop can had zipped through the air at 200 mph and hit me in the ass. It felt the same incomprehension, the same panic, the same terror. I realized that the squirrel was no different than I, that I was an animal just like it.

Just yesterday, I was aimlessly websurfing and came across a site called "Information Clearinghouse", a sort of anti-establishment news service. I scrolled down. A picture flashed into view. A little boy's face, eleven or twelve, contorted in misery. Olive skin, dark hair. Further. Shoulders. Two shapeless potatoes of white gauze sprouting from them, the amputated stumps of his arms. More. Blackened flesh, scorched like a well-done burger, smeared with white burn cream. A little Iraqi boy named Ali, twelve years old, good at geography although he'd never left his hometown, a big family with a lot of sisters and one brother who all love him very much. A missile had hit his house, and his life changed. All he could talk about to the reporter who came to visit him was that he wanted to go home. He was worried about his arms, not being able to eat and play and enjoy a normal life. You could see the hurt and incomprehension and misery in his face, plain as day, just like that little squirrel I wasted half a lifetime ago. I cried, bitter tears burning my eyes and my throat aching. "I'm sorry, little buddy," I said to him, to myself. Ali deserved what he got just like the squirrel did- that is to say, not at all. His life will be forever changed, if he doesn't die from septicemia in a totally unprepared hospital, suffering from injuries that a high-tech US burn ward would have trouble treating effectively.

I don't think that anything meaningful, anything material separates me from Ali or the squirrel. Just beings, capable of feeling joy and pain and everything else, going about their lives, trying to survive and be happy and at peace. Life is life is life. No separation, no dominion, no separate rights. We feel the same pain, we dream the same dreams. Ali loves his mother just like I love mine. I'd be just as miserable as Ali is if I had been burned and my arms blown off. The squirrel might not have the mental capacity to love in the same way that a human might, but I'm sure the basic essence is there. It feels the same pain I do. Culture, nation, race, species, morality- all meaningless distinctions that seek to emphasize nonexistent divisions. We are all LIFE! We all seek to survive as best we can. We all seek to live and have babies and be happy. Sometimes our culture or our life circumstances lead us into delusion, and our priorities get messed up, and we do awful things. That seed of evil and destruction can be planted in any heart. Evil is in the act. I believe that we all possess the same potential for good and evil, and that when evil is done it is done not out of inherent evil but misdirection and delusion.

The squirrel died because of an arrogant little boy. So might Ali, for the same reason, if one doens't essentially consider him dead already. Just one of thousands of wounded, over a thousand dead, in yet another war that's going to do nothing to achieve a lasting peace. Just another cause, and just another effect, of those meaningless distinctions, and the needless turmoil and hatred. When we go to war, we forget that we're all humans, capable of the same pain, the same bliss, the same joy, the same hatred. Our genes are all the same, just with different ones flipped on and off. We share the same physiology and psychology, yearn for the same things. We all just want to live in peace and be happy and have children and love. When we do things that cause pain, cause suffering, cause death and destruction and maimed little boys, we destroy our ability to be at peace and love and have babies. Death and destruction, even for the purest of motives, beget only more death and destruction. As the saying goes, bombing for peace is like f--king for virginity. War will not create peace in the long run. War will just create more war, as hearts are misdirected by fury and hurt and seek to lash out at those who have hurt them. We cannot bomb the world into being peaceful, and you're living in a dreamworld if you think that's possible. Introducing peace into the world is the only way peace will become a part of the world.

We defend our country, passing draconian laws and fortifying points of entry, lashing out at those who oppose us, hating and fearing and hurting. We oppose force with force, take an eye for an eye, revenge our dead by creating more. Instead of perpetuating the endless cycle, why not try combating hate with love, war with peace? Why do the terrorists hate us? Because for the last hundred years, we've been at nearly endless war, trying to impose what we think is right on the world, sowing the seeds of hate and pain all around us. Don't delude yourself by saying that they "hate that we have a free society". They hate us because of our heavy handedness, our willingness to f--k with other nation's affairs, to create little Alis in the name of our values, to bomb cities and wedding parties. They hate us because we presume that our way is best and that everyone should be like us, because our companies care only for the profit motive, because we have such blatantly deceptive motives for our misbegotten wars.

The only way out is peace. If the entire war budget had been devoted to building universities, schools, infrastructure, and perpetuating love, the world would be a better place. The war hasn't changed anything but a regime. Why not change the minds and hearts of millions? Why not fund AIDS treatment for all the infected poor of Africa? Why not send our nation's youth out to do service work in less fortunate parts of the world? Why not promote good sanitation and medical care? You get out of the world what you put into it. Why not put some peace and goodwill and happiness out into the world for a change? We could take away the reasons that the terrorists hate us. Instead of killing little boys, let's endow scholarships to send them to college and build the third world's educated workforce. Let's promote an open and tolerant and free society. Instead of bulding America into a fortress, let's open it up, and open up our hearts. Because all we are is beings, trying to find a way to survive and prosper. And we all deserve the same chance to do that.

Whew.

Evil pellet gun? It was possessed by Satan? Bias shows early in the words of fools. If you killed and did not do so to defend or feed, then you have no excuse for blaming anyone but you for the senseless death of a living creature. Why did you aim and shoot at the squirrel if it did not attack yopu or you did not intend to feed your family with it? Are you insane? Killing for the fun of it then feeling bad? If you don't freaking feel bad looking at the person in your sights before you pull the trigger then you're a trigger happy fool that only felt regret because it wasn't "as cool as you thought it would be"

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"when I was 11, I shot a squirrel with my pellet gun...I reloaded and shot him in the head"

"little kids who can't be left alone with animals, else they'll torture them. These children have something wrong with their brains. Not their fault. "

Sometimes additional words aren't necessary.


:rolleyes: Where's the context?

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Troll


Evil pellet gun? It was possessed by Satan? Bias shows early in the words of fools. If you killed and did not do so to defend or feed, then you have no excuse for blaming anyone but you for the senseless death of a living creature. Why did you aim and shoot at the squirrel if it did not attack yopu or you did not intend to feed your family with it? Are you insane? Killing for the fun of it then feeling bad? If you don't freaking feel bad looking at the person in your sights before you pull the trigger then you're a trigger happy fool that only felt regret because it wasn't "as cool as you thought it would be"

Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned crying over its dead body? The remorse that I felt and the change in perspective it brought? Did you read it it all, or did you just sort of skim the first couple lines. And are any 11 year olds not fools?

Tony- I think the point is that war and divisiveness don't work. In a totally nonemotional, pragmatic way, it's undeniable that war doesn't accomplish what we want it to. Therefore, another approach might achieve the ends we want to. And I don't just refer to American bombs- I refer to the whole system of war. Americans, Afghanis, Iraqis, everyone. We need to reject imposition of our agendas on the world. Compassion should be the only agenda, because it's the only alternative that has proven effective.

And no, this will never happen. It's a pie in the sky. But if we just shrug and say, oh well, nothing to be done, we're truly f--ked. I posted this just as a voice of dissent, a call for a better way. If we refuse to even strive for a better world, advancement will stop. And I truly believe that none of those conflicts mentioned in one of the posts would have been necessary if the doctrine of compassion- in essence, following the Constitution and the teachings of our founding fathers faithfully and to the letter- had been followed right from the start. We've lost the way our founders laid out for us, and the world has suffered as a result.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Gandhi secured independence in India with nonviolence. Martin Luther King helped end overt racism in our country. Instead of just giving up and whoring ourselves out to the orgy of hate and killing that's overtaking the world, we should at least try. At least some difference could be made. And it would certainly be better than more slaughtered children, wouldn't you say.

Gandhi secured independence because he was dealing with Great Britain -- a country of basically decent people who had a democratic style government and who could be reached with appeals for fairness.

Had Gahndi been up against Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Hitler, or even Hussein -- someone without a conscience, without remorse -- it would never have worked.

NA

[BobK]

Originally posted by Kashyapa


Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned crying over its dead body? The remorse that I felt and the change in perspective it brought? Did you read it it all, or did you just sort of skim the first couple lines. And are any 11 year olds not fools?

Tony- I think the point is that war and divisiveness don't work. In a totally nonemotional, pragmatic way, it's undeniable that war doesn't accomplish what we want it to. Therefore, another approach might achieve the ends we want to. And I don't just refer to American bombs- I refer to the whole system of war. Americans, Afghanis, Iraqis, everyone. We need to reject imposition of our agendas on the world. Compassion should be the only agenda, because it's the only alternative that has proven effective.

And no, this will never happen. It's a pie in the sky. But if we just shrug and say, oh well, nothing to be done, we're truly f--ked. I posted this just as a voice of dissent, a call for a better way. If we refuse to even strive for a better world, advancement will stop. And I truly believe that none of those conflicts mentioned in one of the posts would have been necessary if the doctrine of compassion- in essence, following the Constitution and the teachings of our founding fathers faithfully and to the letter- had been followed right from the start. We've lost the way our founders laid out for us, and the world has suffered as a result.

Wishing it so doesn't make it possible.

Well written, but it's rather impractical to expect the most predatory species on the planet to suddenly ignore all agressive
instincts and become totally compassionate.

It seems to me that our founding fathers knew very well that war is sometimes a necessity. Otherwise they wouldn't have made provisions for war in the constitution.

Concerning your traumatic experience I have a couple questions.

DId your father really give you the pellet gun before impressing on you the idea of having consideration for life?

What happened to the gun? i.e. sold, given away, countinued use, destroyed, passed on to children

Could you maybe give us a ballpark current age so we have a better idea whether these are longheld beliefs or only for a few years?

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Tony
People like me will take advantage of the "peace" and "good intentions".
Just out of curiosity, what kind of people are those? Can you be more specific?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
I truly believe that none of those conflicts mentioned in one of the posts would have been necessary if the doctrine of compassion- in essence, following the Constitution and the teachings of our founding fathers faithfully and to the letter- had been followed right from the start.
If an intruder were going into the bedroom of your sleeping two year old son, would you respond with "compassion" for the intruder? Is there any circumstance where deadly force is justified?

[Lemastre]

Ever since Eve bit that damned apple, we've been going downhill. Even people who know better figure out ways to rationalize abusing and subjugating others. And then there are those who don't know better and don't want to.

[Skeptic]

We oppose force with force, take an eye for an eye, revenge our dead by creating more. Instead of perpetuating the endless cycle, why not try combating hate with love, war with peace?

Because it's know as "appeasement" and it never worked. The sole result of "loving" and "understanding the motives" of terrorists is more terrorism.

Remember Hitler? Only when he was opposed by "an eye for an eye, revenging the dead by creating more", was he stopped. As long as Chamberline&co. tried "understanding" him, he just got stronger and of course created ever more mischief.

Why do the terrorists hate us? Because for the last hundred years, we've been at nearly endless war, trying to impose what we think is right on the world,

Indeed. What right did the US have to tell Hitler that killing millions of people isn't right, or to the USSR that trying to take over western europe and enslave it as well is bad.

Who says that a world-wide rule of radical Islam, setting it all back to the 7th century, is "bad"? What is "bad" anyway? Who knows? Who decides? This is SO philosophical...

The truth is, this attitude is--in a word--racist. It is of course horrible and evil for Hitler or Stalin to butcher and enslave, and it was fine for the US to stop them--since the victims were Europeans. But when it is Saddam or Ho Chi Min that murder and enslave, it's suddenly just "part of their culture" that the US has "no right" to stop, because it's just "imposing what the US considers right" on the world.

Why? Because, you know, Bin Laden & co. are just opressing foreigners, people with dark skins and fuuny clothes, that don't speak anything LIKE English. Who knows if these weird people don't ENJOY being ruled by dictatorial madmen? Perhaps they like it? The madmen in charge keep telling us that they are ruling by their people's will, so it has to be true!

sowing the seeds of hate and pain all around us. Don't delude yourself by saying that they "hate that we have a free society".

It's not a delusion.

There is nothing more dangerous for dictatorships than the free exchange of ideas and criticism. This is why the USSR, for example, used to improsion and kill, not only those who forcefully opposed it, but poets and writers as well. The fact that, in the US, people can actually criticize the religion or beliefs, or the actions, of those in charge without being shot dead is something Bin Laden and his friends fear far more than they fear the US military force.

It was often the case that a dictatorial regime was bombed or had its citizens killed by an opposing force and survived to tell the tale (the Iraq-Iran war, or for that matter, most "third world" wars, such as those in Africa, are between two dictatorships.) But not ONE dictatorial regime EVER survived giving its people the freedom to vote and speak their mind more than a couple of weeks. Once you get that, it's OVER.

THIS--the freedom America represents--is what they hate the most, not because of philosophical differences, but because it is the democracies' secret weapon, the trump card that will destroy the Bin Ladens of the world, like it destroyed Stalin's USSR, if the people they opress ever get a whiff of it. They have good reason to fear American freedom more than American bombs!

They hate us because of our heavy handedness, our willingness to f--k with other nation's affairs, to create little Alis in the name of our values, to bomb cities and wedding parties.

Funny, though, how the Afghanis--despite having a wedding party bombed by mistake by American troops--still welcomed the Americans as Liberators in Kabul and were quite glad that the Taliban are out. Perhaps it had someting to do with the fact that, as sad as the bombing of the wedding party was, it was accidental, unlike the Taliban's killing of anybody, in a wedding party or not, who dares not to agree with them.

They hate us because we presume that our way is best and that everyone should be like us

Yes, a free country where criticizing the government is possible without getting your hand cut off or worse. Disgusting, this awful cultural imperialism.

Of course, nobody ever complains that the US decided in WWII that the Germans and French DO need to "be like the United States" and be released from Hitler's opression. It's just when the US tries to help non-Europeans that the left protests: for all we know, these little brown and yellow-skinned people actually LIKE living in opression and fear, as their government's official propaganda repeatedly says.

Remind me to use the same principle if I ever witness, say, a husband trying to kill his wife. If he is white, I will call the cops. But if he is (say) Indian or Morrocan, I'll just move on; after all, who am I to impose MY western values on HIS traditional ones? Who says it's BETTER not to kill your wife than to do so? I don't want to be accused of "cultural imperialism" here, you see...

The only way out is peace. If the entire war budget had been devoted to building universities, schools, infrastructure, and perpetuating love, the world would be a better place.

...until some Bin Laden or Hitler who DID spend his money on weapons smacks his lips and decides to take over the now-defensless country. (Jesus Christ, how naive can you GET?)

The war hasn't changed anything but a regime. Why not change the minds and hearts of millions?

Changing the Regime DID change the hearts and minds of millions. It freed the Iraqis of living in daily terror and squalor, and their relief is quite visible as they kiss US troops. Building schools and hospitals for the Iraqis without changing the regime would have done nothing, since Saddam would simply have stolen it and used it to buy tanks and pay his secret police, as he did with most of the aid he got from the "oil-for-food" program.

Why not fund AIDS treatment for all the infected poor of Africa?Why not send our nation's youth out to do service work in less fortunate parts of the world?

The US IS doing that. Of course, not being a socialist country, it cannot FORCE anybody to go, which is why the peace corps don't include many people.

But a much, MUCH more important reason why not too many people are doing that, is that these areas are usually ruled by despotic regimes, which means that every aid given to the counry--any help against AIDS, for sanitation, etc., and all these other noble ideas--is simply stolen by the ruling regimes and used to buy them luxury mansions and pay for their military's weapons as their people starve.

You REALLY want to help Africa? Start by changing "only the regime" in about twenty countries. Send in the Marines, hang the local dictator from the nearest lamppost, to make sure nobody steals the food. THEN you could start talking about helping the poor, since then there is a chance the help will actually reach them.

Let's promote an open and tolerant and free society.

But you don't want to do THAT. That's cultural imperialism,
remember? Besides, promoting tolerant and free societies usually involves getting rid of the local despot first, which usually requires force, which of course is a no-no.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Kashyapa

We've lost the way our founders laid out for us, and the world has suffered as a result.

Wow!!!! And who can take the blame for all the suffering in the world BEFORE the USA was even a dream?????

I do agree that war does NOT always solve things, but it is sometimes a necessary evil to resolve things gone terribly off kilter.

Corrupt governments in the Middle East are responsible for using the USA/Israel as a convenient scapegoat to deflect their citizen's anger away from THEIR own regimes. They have more than enough resources of their own to be successful and thriving countries and do not NEED the money of infidels to boost them up.

Until the world stops catering and making excuses for these corrupt governments, we cannot expect to see an end to more & more exported terror.

[Skeptic]

Gandhi secured independence in India with nonviolence. Martin Luther King helped end overt racism in our country.

That might have had something to do with the fact that they were opposing FREE, DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES--England or America--with a free press and where the citizen's opinion mattered, so that non-violence a). got covered despite the government not wanting it to, and b). changed the public's opinion despite the government's wishes to the contrary.

If Ghandi or MLK had tried non-violence against the Nazis, Saddam Hussein, or Bin Laden, they and their followers would simply have been slaughtered to the last man, without anybody hearing about it because no press would have been allowed. Remember the Kurds in the 1980s, where Saddam gassed them to death for daring to "oppose" him? Or the non-violent attempts to limit Hitler's power after 1933 (those who tried were simply butchered)? THAT'S how far non-violent resistance gets you with THOSE kinds of regimes.

[saddam]

Originally posted by Vorticity

Just out of curiosity, what kind of people are those? Can you be more specific? **********.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
We oppose force with force, take an eye for an eye, revenge our dead by creating more. Instead of perpetuating the endless cycle, why not try combating hate with love, war with peace?

Because it's know as "appeasement" and it never worked. The sole result of "loving" and "understanding the motives" of terrorists is more terrorism.

Remember Hitler? Only when he was opposed by "an eye for an eye, revenging the dead by creating more", was he stopped. As long as Chamberline&co. tried "understanding" him, he just got stronger and of course created ever more mischief.

Why do the terrorists hate us? Because for the last hundred years, we've been at nearly endless war, trying to impose what we think is right on the world,

Indeed. What right did the US have to tell Hitler that killing millions of people isn't right, or to the USSR that trying to take over western europe and enslave it as well is bad.

Who says that a world-wide rule of radical Islam, setting it all back to the 7th century, is "bad"? What is "bad" anyway? Who knows? Who decides? This is SO philosophical...

The truth is, this attitude is--in a word--racist. It is of course horrible and evil for Hitler or Stalin to butcher and enslave, and it was fine for the US to stop them--since the victims were Europeans. But when it is Saddam or Ho Chi Min that murder and enslave, it's suddenly just "part of their culture" that the US has "no right" to stop, because it's just "imposing what the US considers right" on the world.

Why? Because, you know, Bin Laden & co. are just opressing foreigners, people with dark skins and fuuny clothes, that don't speak anything LIKE English. Who knows if these weird people don't ENJOY being ruled by dictatorial madmen? Perhaps they like it? The madmen in charge keep telling us that they are ruling by their people's will, so it has to be true!

sowing the seeds of hate and pain all around us. Don't delude yourself by saying that they "hate that we have a free society".

It's not a delusion.

There is nothing more dangerous for dictatorships than the free exchange of ideas and criticism. This is why the USSR, for example, used to improsion and kill, not only those who forcefully opposed it, but poets and writers as well. The fact that, in the US, people can actually criticize the religion or beliefs, or the actions, of those in charge without being shot dead is something Bin Laden and his friends fear far more than they fear the US military force.

It was often the case that a dictatorial regime was bombed or had its citizens killed by an opposing force and survived to tell the tale (the Iraq-Iran war, or for that matter, most "third world" wars, such as those in Africa, are between two dictatorships.) But not ONE dictatorial regime EVER survived giving its people the freedom to vote and speak their mind more than a couple of weeks. Once you get that, it's OVER.

THIS--the freedom America represents--is what they hate the most, not because of philosophical differences, but because it is the democracies' secret weapon, the trump card that will destroy the Bin Ladens of the world, like it destroyed Stalin's USSR, if the people they opress ever get a whiff of it. They have good reason to fear American freedom more than American bombs!

They hate us because of our heavy handedness, our willingness to f--k with other nation's affairs, to create little Alis in the name of our values, to bomb cities and wedding parties.

Funny, though, how the Afghanis--despite having a wedding party bombed by mistake by American troops--still welcomed the Americans as Liberators in Kabul and were quite glad that the Taliban are out. Perhaps it had someting to do with the fact that, as sad as the bombing of the wedding party was, it was accidental, unlike the Taliban's killing of anybody, in a wedding party or not, who dares not to agree with them.

They hate us because we presume that our way is best and that everyone should be like us

Yes, a free country where criticizing the government is possible without getting your hand cut off or worse. Disgusting, this awful cultural imperialism.

Of course, nobody ever complains that the US decided in WWII that the Germans and French DO need to "be like the United States" and be released from Hitler's opression. It's just when the US tries to help non-Europeans that the left protests: for all we know, these little brown and yellow-skinned people actually LIKE living in opression and fear, as their government's official propaganda repeatedly says.

Remind me to use the same principle if I ever witness, say, a husband trying to kill his wife. If he is white, I will call the cops. But if he is (say) Indian or Morrocan, I'll just move on; after all, who am I to impose MY western values on HIS traditional ones? Who says it's BETTER not to kill your wife than to do so? I don't want to be accused of "cultural imperialism" here, you see...

The only way out is peace. If the entire war budget had been devoted to building universities, schools, infrastructure, and perpetuating love, the world would be a better place.

...until some Bin Laden or Hitler who DID spend his money on weapons smacks his lips and decides to take over the now-defensless country. (Jesus Christ, how naive can you GET?)

The war hasn't changed anything but a regime. Why not change the minds and hearts of millions?

Changing the Regime DID change the hearts and minds of millions. It freed the Iraqis of living in daily terror and squalor, and their relief is quite visible as they kiss US troops. Building schools and hospitals for the Iraqis without changing the regime would have done nothing, since Saddam would simply have stolen it and used it to buy tanks and pay his secret police, as he did with most of the aid he got from the "oil-for-food" program.

Why not fund AIDS treatment for all the infected poor of Africa?Why not send our nation's youth out to do service work in less fortunate parts of the world?

The US IS doing that. Of course, not being a socialist country, it cannot FORCE anybody to go, which is why the peace corps don't include many people.

But a much, MUCH more important reason why not too many people are doing that, is that these areas are usually ruled by despotic regimes, which means that every aid given to the counry--any help against AIDS, for sanitation, etc., and all these other noble ideas--is simply stolen by the ruling regimes and used to buy them luxury mansions and pay for their military's weapons as their people starve.

You REALLY want to help Africa? Start by changing "only the regime" in about twenty countries. Send in the Marines, hang the local dictator from the nearest lamppost, to make sure nobody steals the food. THEN you could start talking about helping the poor, since then there is a chance the help will actually reach them.

Let's promote an open and tolerant and free society.

But you don't want to do THAT. That's cultural imperialism,
remember? Besides, promoting tolerant and free societies usually involves getting rid of the local despot first, which usually requires force, which of course is a no-no.

Skeptic I would print this out and hand it out at peace demonstrations. This is brilliant.

I always thought the, "What right do we have to impose are values on others?" was the worst argument. It really is never taken to its logical conclusion.

I mean for gosh sakes, what right did murdered civil rights workers like Goodwin, Schwerner, and Cheney have to go down to the South and try to fight for Civil Rights? Who are they to decide what is right? They were imposing their culture on Mississippi.

What right does anyone have to tell Pol Pot that he was wrong?

I mean the whole idea of human rights is that they are universal, not on a culture by culture basis.

[Kashyapa]

So when does it end? When does the world become good and happy? When does the war stop? You've got all these great reasons why it works, tell me when to expect some results. I haven't seen any yet, and mankind has been waging war for the last several thousand years with barely a pause. So, all you people who seem to know better, when is it going to end?

Really. Let me know. Is it going to be anytime soon? :rolleyes:

This will be my last post. My only real objective in this thread was to vent, and I got to do that. I'm sick of arguing. I just want something better for the world- call me a naive idealist- and I think we should be actively working towards that rather than perpetuating the angst. But whatever. I'm tired of arguing politics and philosophy. The best possible wishes to you all. Live, love and be happy.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic I would print this out and hand it out at peace demonstrations. This is brilliant.

I dunno. More like stating the blatantly obvious, if you ask me.

As for printing it out in peace rallies, it won't help. The "peace" protestors (more accurately, the "keep the dictator du jour in power by calling the US names" protestors) are really good at ignoring reality.

If I print it out and they agree to read it at all, they'll just call it "government propaganda", or "right-wing polemics", or "naive oversimplification of the situation", or something.

[Kashyapa]

Answer the question, Skeptic. When is war going to finally produce results? Pragmatism now. When's the last dictator going to fall, the last murderer executed, the last disturbance quelled? When is war going to produce peace?

You have all the answers on what's really going to help the world. I mean, it's blatantly obvious that war works. So tell me when it will. Give me a reasonable timeframe. A year? A century? A milennium?

Never?


Hmm, just realized I posted again, right after I said I wouldn't. Oh well. I just couldn't resist asking my question. I'll go away happy when all you people who know how the world really works let me know what's up. I'll be waiting in anticipation!

[NoZed Avenger]

Crime is still with us - obviously lets do away with police and all law. I mean, it hasn't given us a crime-free society so "clearly" it is useless and should be scrapped in favor of whatever half-assed plan I can think up in the next few minutes.

NA

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Mike B.


What right does anyone have to tell Pol Pot that he was wrong?



The right is an individuals right. It needs no permission from others. We still can have independent thought, right?
People can have opinions.
And BTW squirrels are rodents.

Do you feel bad in stepping on an ant? How about scorpions? Swatting those pesky mosquitoes? You are an A_U_P wannabe.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
When is war going to finally produce results? Pragmatism now. When's the last dictator going to fall, the last murderer executed, the last disturbance quelled? When is war going to produce peace?


Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosevic etc.
It's like the arcade "Wack-A-Mole" game.
Why don't free people just give up?
It's because we are free and intend to keep it that way.
Sorry about the squirrel. Shoot a deer and it'll all be put into perspective. :D :D :D

[Kashyapa]

So when's the game end, smart guy? I notice you're very quick to insult me, but very slow to answer my simple question.

And what IS an AUP wannabe?

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Crime is still with us - obviously lets do away with police and all law. I mean, it hasn't given us a crime-free society so "clearly" it is useless and should be scrapped in favor of whatever half-assed plan I can think up in the next few minutes.

NA

I would view police and law as effective- I mean, look to Baghdad for an example of what happens when there is none of either. I'm not asking for a timeframe for total tranquility and peace- just no wars. It's undeniable that there would be occasional little spats of violence, but when will we have won? When will the righteous and responsible US finally vanquish the world's dictators?

Come on....tell me!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Answer the question, Skeptic. When is war going to finally produce results?

Why don’t you show the same courtesy he showed you and address his refutations of your post? I’m anxious to see how a bed-wetter such as yourself deals with logic.

[Kashyapa]

Bed-wetter? Wow, how mature. Clearly you're a man of breeding and education. :rolleyes: My respect for you and your views just went down to near-zero; I will respect a man who disagrees with me, but not if he acts like a child.

I'm asking you guys to answer a simple question. Since you're obviously so much wiser and less naive than I am, you must have an answer. Because if war works, there must be a time when it actually does. Otherwise....it doesn't work.

So tell me, smart guy with all the answers. And this IS logic. For a solution to a problem to be a true solution, it must solve the problem.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa

I'm asking you guys to answer a simple question. Since you're obviously so much wiser and less naive than I am, you must have an answer. Because if war works, there must be a time when it actually does. Otherwise....it doesn't work.



Why dont you address Skeptic's refutations? Come on bedwetter, I dare you.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Supercharts


The right is an individuals right. It needs no permission from others. We still can have independent thought, right?
People can have opinions.
And BTW squirrels are rodents.

Do you feel bad in stepping on an ant? How about scorpions? Swatting those pesky mosquitoes? You are an A_U_P wannabe.

Hey Supercharts...chill man...

You missed my point. I was being sarcastic. I was showing how the "What right do we have...?" argument is a real logical dead end.

:)

Or maybe you are being sarcastic...:cool:

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Tony


Why dont you address Skeptic's refutations? Come on bedwetter, I dare you.

What next? Neener neener neener? Calling me a big poopiehead? Please. Grow up. For the sake of your own dignity, figure out another way to express yourself.

I've read the letter that Osama wrote to the West. It's available on the internet. The entire thing is a diatribe against our having troops in the middle east, our imposition of Christian values on the world, and our hypocritical, diseased culture. He's just as full of s--t as the rest of the world, but I highly doubt he would be as pissed as he was if the West had treated the Middle East in an egalitarian manner. Our behavior to most of the world (that which isn't European and origin, and now even to some of Europe) has been elitist, possessive, "we know best", and deeply, deeply unfair. We fund Israel with billions a year while the Palestinian refugee camps crumble. No peace accord between the Israelis and Palestinians has ever been reached, and the US doesn't care. We lauch airstrikes against some regimes with WMD (Iraq), ignore others (North Korea, China), and encourage yet more (Israel). Our foreign policy and the wars we fight are so obviously biased towards the business interests of US companies (here's your contract, Brown & Root and Halliburton, both of whom are deeply connected with Cheney and the Bush family). We cloak them in highfalutin' ideals that we obviously don't care about, such as human rights, while ignoring human rights violations all over the world in countries who are vital trading partners or allies. Think I'm making this up? I'm not- this is all mentioned in Osama's letter and other anti-American writing.

And then we have the arrogance, the pure shortsightedness, to wonder why the world hates us. It's our freedom, we decide. They're terrified of our ideals. Perhaps true, but it's been made obvious that they hate our lies, unfairness, out-of-control profit lust, and hypocricy more.

Now that I've refuted Skeptic's arguments, it's put up or shut up time, Tony. Answer the question I asked. I TRIPLE DOG dare you.

*Cocks an ear, listening to the chirping of the crickets*

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa



Now that I've refuted Skeptic's arguments, it's put up or shut up time, Tony. Answer the question I asked.





You didnt refute s--t, you just rehashed the same dribble all of us have heard before. Let me help you, here are Skeptic's responses to your bedwetting babble.


Skeptic's responses are in normal type, your writing is bold.


We oppose force with force, take an eye for an eye, revenge our dead by creating more. Instead of perpetuating the endless cycle, why not try combating hate with love, war with peace?

Because it's know as "appeasement" and it never worked. The sole result of "loving" and "understanding the motives" of terrorists is more terrorism.

Remember Hitler? Only when he was opposed by "an eye for an eye, revenging the dead by creating more", was he stopped. As long as Chamberline&co. tried "understanding" him, he just got stronger and of course created ever more mischief.

Why do the terrorists hate us? Because for the last hundred years, we've been at nearly endless war, trying to impose what we think is right on the world,

Indeed. What right did the US have to tell Hitler that killing millions of people isn't right, or to the USSR that trying to take over western europe and enslave it as well is bad.

Who says that a world-wide rule of radical Islam, setting it all back to the 7th century, is "bad"? What is "bad" anyway? Who knows? Who decides? This is SO philosophical...

The truth is, this attitude is--in a word--racist. It is of course horrible and evil for Hitler or Stalin to butcher and enslave, and it was fine for the US to stop them--since the victims were Europeans. But when it is Saddam or Ho Chi Min that murder and enslave, it's suddenly just "part of their culture" that the US has "no right" to stop, because it's just "imposing what the US considers right" on the world.

Why? Because, you know, Bin Laden & co. are just opressing foreigners, people with dark skins and fuuny clothes, that don't speak anything LIKE English. Who knows if these weird people don't ENJOY being ruled by dictatorial madmen? Perhaps they like it? The madmen in charge keep telling us that they are ruling by their people's will, so it has to be true!

sowing the seeds of hate and pain all around us. Don't delude yourself by saying that they "hate that we have a free society".

It's not a delusion.

There is nothing more dangerous for dictatorships than the free exchange of ideas and criticism. This is why the USSR, for example, used to improsion and kill, not only those who forcefully opposed it, but poets and writers as well. The fact that, in the US, people can actually criticize the religion or beliefs, or the actions, of those in charge without being shot dead is something Bin Laden and his friends fear far more than they fear the US military force.

It was often the case that a dictatorial regime was bombed or had its citizens killed by an opposing force and survived to tell the tale (the Iraq-Iran war, or for that matter, most "third world" wars, such as those in Africa, are between two dictatorships.) But not ONE dictatorial regime EVER survived giving its people the freedom to vote and speak their mind more than a couple of weeks. Once you get that, it's OVER.

THIS--the freedom America represents--is what they hate the most, not because of philosophical differences, but because it is the democracies' secret weapon, the trump card that will destroy the Bin Ladens of the world, like it destroyed Stalin's USSR, if the people they opress ever get a whiff of it. They have good reason to fear American freedom more than American bombs!

They hate us because of our heavy handedness, our willingness to f*ck with other nation's affairs, to create little Alis in the name of our values, to bomb cities and wedding parties.

Funny, though, how the Afghanis--despite having a wedding party bombed by mistake by American troops--still welcomed the Americans as Liberators in Kabul and were quite glad that the Taliban are out. Perhaps it had someting to do with the fact that, as sad as the bombing of the wedding party was, it was accidental, unlike the Taliban's killing of anybody, in a wedding party or not, who dares not to agree with them.

They hate us because we presume that our way is best and that everyone should be like us

Yes, a free country where criticizing the government is possible without getting your hand cut off or worse. Disgusting, this awful cultural imperialism.

Of course, nobody ever complains that the US decided in WWII that the Germans and French DO need to "be like the United States" and be released from Hitler's opression. It's just when the US tries to help non-Europeans that the left protests: for all we know, these little brown and yellow-skinned people actually LIKE living in opression and fear, as their government's official propaganda repeatedly says.

Remind me to use the same principle if I ever witness, say, a husband trying to kill his wife. If he is white, I will call the cops. But if he is (say) Indian or Morrocan, I'll just move on; after all, who am I to impose MY western values on HIS traditional ones? Who says it's BETTER not to kill your wife than to do so? I don't want to be accused of "cultural imperialism" here, you see...

The only way out is peace. If the entire war budget had been devoted to building universities, schools, infrastructure, and perpetuating love, the world would be a better place.

...until some Bin Laden or Hitler who DID spend his money on weapons smacks his lips and decides to take over the now-defensless country. (Jesus Christ, how naive can you GET?)

The war hasn't changed anything but a regime. Why not change the minds and hearts of millions?

Changing the Regime DID change the hearts and minds of millions. It freed the Iraqis of living in daily terror and squalor, and their relief is quite visible as they kiss US troops. Building schools and hospitals for the Iraqis without changing the regime would have done nothing, since Saddam would simply have stolen it and used it to buy tanks and pay his secret police, as he did with most of the aid he got from the "oil-for-food" program.

Why not fund AIDS treatment for all the infected poor of Africa?Why not send our nation's youth out to do service work in less fortunate parts of the world?

The US IS doing that. Of course, not being a socialist country, it cannot FORCE anybody to go, which is why the peace corps don't include many people.

But a much, MUCH more important reason why not too many people are doing that, is that these areas are usually ruled by despotic regimes, which means that every aid given to the counry--any help against AIDS, for sanitation, etc., and all these other noble ideas--is simply stolen by the ruling regimes and used to buy them luxury mansions and pay for their military's weapons as their people starve.

You REALLY want to help Africa? Start by changing "only the regime" in about twenty countries. Send in the Marines, hang the local dictator from the nearest lamppost, to make sure nobody steals the food. THEN you could start talking about helping the poor, since then there is a chance the help will actually reach them.

Let's promote an open and tolerant and free society.

But you don't want to do THAT. That's cultural imperialism,
remember? Besides, promoting tolerant and free societies usually involves getting rid of the local despot first, which usually requires force, which of course is a no-no.

[Skeptic]

The right is an individuals right. It needs no permission from others. We still can have independent thought, right?
People can have opinions.

Whoa, Nellie! "Mike B" was being sarcastic. He meant precisely that we DO have the right to tell Pol Pot not to kill people.

[Kashyapa]

Ahh, Tony! I see you're as eloquent and refined as always. It's a pleasure to debate with a man of your reasoned opinons, which you express with such urbanity:

"You didnt refute s--t, you just rehashed the same dribble all of us have heard before. Let me help you, here are Skeptic's responses to your bedwetting babble."

Prove that I'm wrong. Tell me when your way is going to work. I've presented you with evidence straight from our enemy's poison pen that refutes that they hate us strictly because we have democracy. Tell me when it is that war is finally going to start bringing about peace. I said it before and I'll say it again: put up or shut up, you noisy little boy-man who can't express himself without sounding like a furious ten-year-old. If you must insult me, please try to think of something other than "bedwetter." It's getting old.

*Crickets keep chirping*

[Kashyapa]

Skeptic- just to go off topic for a moment, I'd like to say that your signature kicks ass.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa

Prove that I'm wrong. Tell me when your way is going to work. I've presented you with evidence straight from our enemy's poison pen that refutes that they hate us strictly because we have democracy. Tell me when it is that war is finally going to start bringing about peace. I said it before and I'll say it again: put up or shut up, you noisy little boy-man who can't express himself without sounding like a furious ten-year-old. If you must insult me, please try to think of something other than "bedwetter." It's getting old.


Ive noticed you like to dodge rational thought, and once again you dont let me down.

Im not doing anything until you address the points made on this thread.

[jimmygun]

When will war end? Never. Not soon, not later, not years but never. There will always be someone who wants to tell someone else what to do. There will always be someone who wants what you have, no matter how much they have themselves. There will always be someone who likes to see others suffer. There will always be someone who is willing to kill everyone around them to get what they want.

End? Never. Accept it, get past it. Pull your head out of your rectum and look around.

[Kashyapa]

Ah, an answer. Thank you. You're damn right it won't end, the way we're going. It's an endless and vicious circle. There is no outcome besides more war that can possibly be envisioned- under the current system. This indicates to me that the current system will do nothing but continue to create bloodshed and turmoil and death until the end of the world. And you have the lunacy, the raving, mad-dog, irrational doublethink insanity, to tell me that this is the best way to go about things? That this is somehow the best we can do? That this is all humanity is capable of? How sad.

Has it ever occurred to any of you mad dogs that perhaps the reason that dictators keep popping up is because we- meaning the superpowers of the past and present- create them? That we let our corporations (profit-mad leeches that they are) do business with them and rebuild them when we take out our trash, that we fund them and arm them (Saddam's Iraq, pre and even post-Shah Iran, we avert our eyes when they oppress their people (China, Cambodia, Sudan, etc)? We don't give a s--t about anything but our power and our profits, and we manipulate and bomb and jack over the world at will in our ham-handed attempts to make it all work in America's favor. And it never really does, does it? As long as they're our bastards, we're okay with them, but then the bastards get too powerful and uppity. And then we have to deal with our messes (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Vietnam), while our country's economy drags slowly into the ground and our culture gets sicker and sicker. America and the West- because we're joined in our obsession with world manipulation by our illustrious forebears the USSR Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and Portugal- need to realize that they are the true and lasting cause of world turmoil. Why? Because they believe that they're best, that they deserve to control the world because it's their righteous duty, their White Man's Burden, to civilize the entire world in their image. America is not the be-all end-all of the world, and we have to realize that the world would be much better off if we stopped trying to force our will on it. We're like the king ordering the tide not to come in and getting soaked anyway- we need to realize that we are not the king of the world but a part of it, and that the divisions between citizens of different countries and cultures are not as valid as they seem.

It seems as if you're all very shortsighted. You only see the nasty little moles, popping out of their holes and needing to be whacked, losing sight of the fact that it's our quarters that keep them popping up.

And of course you all are going to start puling and bitching that I'm full of s--t and a bedwetter, and Tony's going to rev up his adolescent temper, and I'll be told to take my head out of my rectum some more. All on the assumption that we're the best, that we have to be the cop, that of course we need to manipulate the world into doing what we want or else- oh dear god- America might not be as powerful! We might not be the ultimate cultural and political authority of the world, we might not be able to muscle the world into doing what's best for our interests (i.e. our corporations and the governement that loves them). And I'll be called a traitor, and a commie, and an anti-American, and to go back to my country, and all the other aggro America-first, "onward Christian soldiers", myopic neo-conservative crap that gets slung around by those who are too addicted to the status quo.

"It's just how the world works, you naive bedwetter," you say. That's how we regarded child labor and slavery and women's voting rights in this country, too. And eventually, people belatedly realized how nuts it was, how unworkable, how completely derogatory and nonsensical it was, and we changed it. I hope the same thing happens with war, and then eventually all violence. I share the hope of Gandhi and King, both men more spiritual and intelligent and perceptive than anyone pro-war has ever been, the hope that eventually "we ain't gonna study war no more". Their ways of life and thought were difficult, requiring a s--tload of realism and brutal self-honesty and fortitude and patience and love. They required perception, open minds and open hearts. They worked their asses off, both dying for their causes, slain by men who clung to their delusions the way you cling to yours. But they eventually triumphed, and they did what they did without a single soul on the "other side" dying.

So have fun with your righteous words of hate and violence, your souls escaping from your mouths with every twisted word. I don't hate or even dislike you, but I do hate how you've been twisted and manipulated to think that this way of thought is somehow superior. Meanwhile, I'll be outside, playing with my dog, and probably go rock climbing for a while. I'll incorporate as much peace and love into my life as possible, try to make the world a better place in my own small way, trying to outweigh the righteous, dogmatic anger that people like you pump into a world that has had too much of it. Peace out.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
And meanwhile, I'll be outside, playing with my dog, and probably go rock climbing for a while.
Good for you.

Narcissistic personality disorder, a diagnosis that fits a great many world leaders, appears to be a function of nature more than nurture. Psychiatrists do not know how to effectively treat this condition. In some cases, therapy has simply resulted in making narcissists better at lying and manipulating others.

I imagine that narcissists have their ecological niche to fulfill, as do sharks, mosquitos, and other of God's creatures. Like sharks, they're best appreciated from a distance. Like sharks, sometimes you have to kill them.

[Kashyapa]

One last before I go outside.

Your points were reasonable, kind, and well-put, not to mention accurate. Thank you!

I have no quarrel with dealing with the occasional megalomaniac. That would help keep the world at a peaceful equilibrium, if the world was already at that state. I don't apologize for Saddam or his evil. But his evil was really ours. If he had arisen on his own, and the world had, with consensus and after a full round of sincere diplomatic attempts, decided to remove him, I would have no problem. However, he was installed, funded, and armed by us because we were obsessed with countering the allatollahs of Iran and needed a friendly strongman to take out the trash. The allatollahs rose to power because of widespread disgust with the Shah, the Saddam of his time and country, who was a complete bastard, who we likewise armed and helped. Again, dealing with an isolated shark is different from perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Thanks for your comments and civility.

[Skeptic]

I said it before and I'll say it again: put up or shut up, you noisy little boy-man who can't express himself without sounding like a furious ten-year-old.

Uh-huh. Okay, who ELSE thinks this guy is just a troll?

(Good one, though. Had me fooled for a while...)

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...Did you lock your door when you went out to throw rocks at your dog? Well didja punk? Why? Because there is no trust in your fellow man is there? You don't trust your own bullsh*t long enough to walk out your front door. Who the hell do you think keeps you and Susan Sarandon safe? Your beliefs that everything is beautiful except for the rotten government that will force the burglar to steal your sh*t? Again, pull out your noggin and have a real look around.

By the way...how much do you wish to spend for a gallon of gasoline? Or will you boycott the war by never buying gas again, or plastic products, or food you didn't grow yourself. Will you trade your trip to the rock face for one day to feed someone in Ethiopia for a month? Would you get rid of your dog and send the money you spend on upkeep to India where it will keep a family of four going for ten years?

When you got back from your trip did you turn on the lights and expect the dark to disappear? Did you adjust the heat or A/C to make yourself comfy? Did you go to the fridge expecting your SunnyDelight to be there to quench your thirst? Do you expect all the good life to be there without some sacrifice on someone's part? While you got your head out of your ass read my signiture...it will explain something about what goes on in the world.

[Kashyapa]

And what, precisely, is your point? Everyone is dependent on each other? Terriffic, you've just gotten at one of the great truths of Buddhism. That's why we should put more love and trust and peace into ourselves and our relationships. Way to prove my point for me.

I didn't lock my door. I live in a good neighborhood, and I generally assume that it'll be safe. Unlike you, I generally assume that I can trust people- until they prove themselves to be untrustworthy. As for the "burglar", he's just tainted by our society- I hold all of us responsible for the acts of one. The whole village raising a child thing.

I don't really care what we pay for gas. We shouldn't use it anyway. Better and cleaner forms of energy out there. Same for petroleum-based plastics. We can make better polymers out of soy and corn, for crying out loud. I use as little petroleum-based materials as possible out of social responsibility. I ride a bike most everywhere, and my car is a diesel Jetta wagon. 47mpg, baby. I fill up once every week and a half at most.

As for my willingness to sacrifice, I travel to India every year to teach English and help create parkland in the town of Dharmsala, way up in the north, in the Himalayan foothills. That's where one of your enemies, the Dalai Lama, lives. I spend around 5k for a ticket, and generally donate money and time when I'm there. I also give generously to several worthy charities, and I volunteer at a hospital and do volunteer consultant work with the Colorado 14ers initiative. My entire life's work centers around conservation efforts in the neotropical rainforests of Central and South America. And I do it while still providing for my dog. Wonder of the world.

My point is not that I'm a good person, but rather that your assumptions and flaming are out of line and completely inaccurate. You made a whole line of unfounded assumptions, and expressed them without a modicum of grace or civility.

Skeptic- If anyone's a troll, it's you and Tony. All you two can talk about is my being a bedwetter, and your posts have been abusive and deeply unpleasant. The force of your hatred and anger is evident straight through your computer screen. All I've ever advocated is acceptance, peace, and goodwill. I've pointed out how puerile and adolescent your behavior is, but nothing else. I disagree with you, but I do it respectfully. How, precisely, does that make me (and not you) a troll?

I notice you still can't come up with an answer to my question, either. *chirp chirp chirp* And another thing- why does this piss you off so much? Everybody's responding to me like a mad dog, and they've been doing so since way before I called them on it earlier today. What makes you so angry about my advocating peace?

[egslim]

In their treaty the Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan had already divided up the world. Germany would get the western part of Eurasia, Japan the east. Italy was to have Africa. After the attack on Pearl Harbor the Japanese started planning for a future invasion of the US.
What do you think would have happened if the western democracies and te SU would have used their defence budget to build schools in Germany?

Three other points. A few weeks ago I was cycling home at night through a decent neighbourhood, just minding my own business. Some guy steps on the road in front of me, tells me to stop. I just ignore him and try to go around. So he gives a kick against my bicycle.
Now explain to me why he did that and what I could have done to avoid it.

Couple of years ago, a similar thing happened. That guy didn't say anything, just suddenly stepped onto the road and gave me push. I fell from my bike and almost ended up in the water.
Now explain to me why he did that and what I could have done to avoid it.

For years, there was a guy who always slapped me in the neck. Tried everything from talking to him, ignoring him and avoiding him. Nothing worked. The one thing that did eventually work was when I slapped him in the neck. After that, it never happened again.

The point is that there are people who are aggressive just for the fun of it. If they get in power in some country there is no reason why they shouldn't just continue their hobby - and indeed, history has proved this is the case. Germany and Italy were democracies before Hitler and Mussolini got into power.

Evil is allowed to survive because good men do nothing.
Don't know where that comes from, but it is a good one.

[Kashyapa]

See what I said to Dr. Benway a few posts ago. I've essentially already addressed your points. If that post doesn't answer what you're getting at, let me know.

Thanks to you, too, for a reasonable and polite argument. There are far too few of them in this thread.

[egslim]

I have no quarrel with dealing with the occasional megalomaniac. That would help keep the world at a peaceful equilibrium, if the world was already at that state.
Why do you believe a peaceful world would be in equilibrium?

I don't see any reason why that would be the case.

From a physical point of view, if a system is isolated it will eventually come into equilibrium by itself. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The way we have been going the past 2000 years I don't see us heading to a perfectly peaceful world. And people like you have been around for a long time. So if we're not heading there automatically, it doesn't seem te be an equilibrium.

From a psychological point of view, if we had perfect peace on Earth, people would stop appreciating it. Think about it, it's true for everything else we have achieved. So certain people would start yearning for the adventure and the glamour of war. Even now, peace isn't the highest goal for many people.

From a biological point of view, no animal lives in peace. They all compete with their others of their own and other species to pass as many of their genes as possible. Stealing each others food, etc. Cheating, threatening and violence are part of their repetoir, and it's part of us being Homo Sapiens. So is working together. Working together on violence is quite similar to starting a war.

[Kashyapa]

So do you think that violence is sort of the baseline state for existence? I actually wouldn't rule that out, at least in the form of ecological competition...but I do think, still, that there's a difference between that and how we wage war now. War today isn't to ensure national or species survival, and even less so personal survival. It's nationalistic fanaticsim, power, profit motive. We don't have to hunt for meat- in fact, it's arguable that humans don't need meat at all- and we are sentient. That means that, even if violence is a component of our collective psyche, we can choose a better way that is more conducive to species survival. And it can be argued that rape and female abuse exists in the natural world (and our own ancestral past), and it happens in all sorts of animals. That doesn't mean it's what's best for the species or best for its continued survival, and it doesn't mean that we have to do it too. We're the only animals intelligent enought to make the choice. And our intelligence has brought us to the point that the choice needs to be made.

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...I guess I owe you an apology. I did pre judge you. I didn't realize what kind of a saint you are. Shall I call you Mother Kashyapa?

You trust everyone, you don't polute, you travel thousands of miles to help the underprivilaged, you rock climb. Wow. Sounds too good to be true doesn't it?

Pushed the wrong button. Edited to add...

Can you heal the sick, raise the dead and make the little girls talk outa their head?

Can I ask one more question? Are your eyes brown?

[Kashyapa]

You're right. You do owe me an apology- a sincere one. The only reason I brought up thost parts of my life is because you attacked me out of hand for daring to disagree with you. You and Tony could have took the high ground and offered well-reasoned points in a civil and reasonable tone. Instead, you attacked me and my ideas like a pair of rabid hyenas, shrill and profane, full of false patriotism and jingoism.
You imply that I'm bragging, that I expect to be venerated for my holiness. I'm not and I don't. I'm not a saint; I don't work miracles. I simply do what I am obligated to do as a Buddhist, a human being with a social conscience, and an ounce of compassion. Perhaps it's incomprehensible to you, but this is how normal, compassionate people act. Perhaps they don't travel thousands of miles, but everyone I know who's in touch with what it is to be a social human being does something for their fellow humans. I work for peace because it's the only way out. There are many millions who live the same way I do- I'm not special, I'm not alone, and I'm not some righteous nutcase. I'm not too good to be true. I do what I do in anonymity- except when I have to mention it to defend myself- and I do it simply because it's the right thing to do, because if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

And no, they're blue. Wrong again. Perhaps you should try to look outside your habitual hostile distrust of everyone, hmm? I'll ask again- what makes you so angry about what I'm saying? Disagree with me or not, your anger is absolutely baffling.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Total non-violence doesn't work -- because there are indeed men like Hitler out there. However...

A little detour.

Dawkins, in his book "The Selfish gene", wrote a little about how game theory affects evolution, and evolved action policies of different species. He gave examples of an environment populated by two kinds of action agents -- let's call them "doves" and "hawks". When two individuals meet, they act according to their nature: doves posture but retreat under threat of violence (so a dove/dove encounter ends with a random victory, but doves always lose to hawks), and a hawk always fights (so a hawk will always win over a dove, but will fight to bitter end with another hawk). Dawkin's point is that there is a natural equilibrium, at which point the average value of being a dove (rarely winning, but never getting hurt) is exactly the same as the vaue of being a hawk (often winning, but also getting hurt a lot). At this point, th eutility value for both doves and hawks is pretty low; but the system is not open to abuse, as nobody will benefit by adopting the other kind's policy.

In a society of all doves, the average utility value is much higher -- each dove wins half the time, and nobody gets hurt; but in a society of all doves, a hawk rules, so such a system is open to abuse. Similarly, in a society of all ahwks, a single dove will get ahead -- he will never win, but he won't get hurt either, like hawks would all the time.

BUT... things change when you introduce a new type -- retaliator. A retaliator never intitates hostilities, but always defends against such; so a retaliator acts as a dove against doves, and as a hawk against hawks. A society of all retaliaors has as good an average utility as the society of all doves, but it's not open to abuse by hawks.

We should be retaliators; but the key to being a retaliator is not initiating aggression. We should have fought back against Hitler, for example -- but in Iraq case, Iraq wasn't attacking. People who complain that peaceful aspirations would lead us to ignore the existence of evil men and women in the world, themselves ignore the fact that we can seek peace and not attack anyone, but still defend against aggression -- and only defend.

[Kashyapa]

God, I read that book so long ago I didn't remember it at all. What a magnificent point. As I remember, Dawkins noted that it was the most stable strategy in an ecological sense. Thank you very much for reminding me of that! I'll have to pick that one up and read it again. And you're absolutely right- pacifism with strength is another way I've heard it described. I believe Gandhi mentioned this idea too, but I don't remember where or what the quote was. That book was one of the best works of evolutionary psychology I've ever read- and Dawkins is truly one of the great minds of our times. I rank him up there with Hawking, Stephen Jay Gould, and Asimov.

[egslim]

So do you think that violence is sort of the baseline state for existence? I actually wouldn't rule that out, at least in the form of ecological competition...but I do think, still, that there's a difference between that and how we wage war now. War today isn't to ensure national or species survival, and even less so personal survival. It's nationalistic fanaticsim, power, profit motive.

There really isn't a difference between ecological competition and the reasons why we wage war. You've said it yourself, it's (among others) for national power and profit. A rich and mighty nation is in general better able to provide for it's own inhabitants, thereby enabling them to pass on more of their genes. Compare it with the way wolfpacks, gorilla's and lions compete for territory. That's the same, just on a smaller scale.

Second, you haven't adressed my point that people would stop appreciating peace if there were no war anywhere.

As for the squirrel you shot, it wasn't just an innocent animal. It was competing for as much live recources - food and shelter - as it could get, completely neglecting the needs of other squirrels and the organisms he killed.
But this animal was stupid enough to get shot by a 10 year old amateur hunter. Think about it, part of being fit for survival is to notice and identify danger if it arrives. This squirrel simply failed that test. Which was fortunate for the other squirrels, who could find more food and shelter after that.

[egslim]

We should be retaliators; but the key to being a retaliator is not initiating aggression. We should have fought back against Hitler, for example -- but in Iraq case, Iraq wasn't attacking. People who complain that peaceful aspirations would lead us to ignore the existence of evil men and women in the world, themselves ignore the fact that we can seek peace and not attack anyone, but still defend against aggression -- and only defend.

One practical problem with the implementation of this is how to recognize aggression. Very few people recognized Hitler as an aggressor before '39. What makes you think we won't make that mistake again?
In the case of Iraq, have we recognized a dangerous aggressor in advance and stopped him in time (like Hitler in '36), or did we unnecessary attack a country that would never have been dangerous to another country again? It is simply impossible to prove the answer to that question.
One thing about aggressors is that will try not to look like aggressors, if that'll save them from being pounded on. They will just wait untill the time comes when they feel having a chance to be succesful.

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by egslim


There really isn't a difference between ecological competition and the reasons why we wage war. You've said it yourself, it's (among others) for national power and profit. A rich and mighty nation is in general better able to provide for it's own inhabitants, thereby enabling them to pass on more of their genes. Compare it with the way wolfpacks, gorilla's and lions compete for territory. That's the same, just on a smaller scale.

Second, you haven't adressed my point that people would stop appreciating peace if there were no war anywhere.

As for the squirrel you shot, it wasn't just an innocent animal. It was competing for as much live recources - food and shelter - as it could get, completely neglecting the needs of other squirrels and the organisms he killed.
But this animal was stupid enough to get shot by a 10 year old amateur hunter. Think about it, part of being fit for survival is to notice and identify danger if it arrives. This squirrel simply failed that test. Which was fortunate for the other squirrels, who could find more food and shelter after that.

1. Right. But cooperation is a better way to get what you want. There's a process called reciprocal altruism that holds true in this case. You give something to someone else, that person reciprocates (maybe not immediately, or maybe indirectly), everyone comes out even. That's how a lot of ecological interactions go. Wolves, gorillas, etc, all operate under a retaliator principle, not unbridled aggression. They will retaliate (usually using displays, not outright aggression and violence) only if directly attacked, otherwise they maintain peace with their neighbors. Resource competition in most species is through physical prowess and ability. Competition rarely results in direct, outright death for one side; death is usually meted out through starvation, lack of territory, or some other resource. Competition is a normal and completely natural thing, but it is rarely violent. It either results in specialization- one side evolves to occupy a slightly different niche, lessening competition- or extinction from the means I discussed. Incidentally, I believe that this can happen with memes as well as genes- memes being ideas that are passed around and evolved. The retaliator meme is stronger and more sustainable than the hawk meme- and I believe that as it is propagated, the hawk meme will die out just like a maladaptive gene.

2. The squirrel was a good competitor. It's hard for a species to foresee the possibility of a chunk of lead flying out from left field and hitting it. This is not a commonplace selection pressure on squirrels, and it was simply not equipped to defend against a pellet gun. It had adapted to humans, who didn't usuallly strike out with projectiles from a hundred feet away, and it had no way to know that this one was going to do so. I don't regard that as a failure.

3. Your thought that people would stop appreciating peace was interesting. I think it would be analogous to child labor in the US- your average ten year old doesn't thank God every day that he doesn't have to work in a coal mine. However, that right is protected by laws, and it is commonly brought up in history classes and the History Channel. Same thing with slavery. Maybe it's not appreciated fully, but it's still a part of our culture to educate and inform and hopefully avert it in the future. The same thing would likely hold true in the generations after peace took hold.

4. People recognized Hitler as a bad guy pretty early on. There were of course the ones who turned a blind eye, but there were many observers who were warning the world even before he started aggression. I don't really know how we'd get around this-especially if peace were commonplace, and people were exceedingly reluctant to go to war. That's a good question that I don't have a definitive answer for. Perhaps a government agency or UN office would sort of serve as the watchdog, to keep tabs. It'd be hard to do anything with somebody until they did something- just as in the justice system, we have to assume non-culpability until proof of guilt exists. Pre-emptive war is one of the evils I'd like to see exorcized, just like we can't arrest someone without reasonable suspicion and we can't convict without proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There cannot be a double standard.

You've raised some good points. I think they can be adjusted for, if peace is really a priority in the world.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
We should be retaliators; but the key to being a retaliator is not initiating aggression.
What happens if we introduce a new strategy in addition to the dove, hawk, and retaliator strategies: the strategy of the suicidal killer.

The suicidal killer negates the advantage of the retaliator, unless the retaliator can target the place which generates the suicidal killers before they act. But then the retaliator isn't a retaliator. He's a pre-emptive striker.

[Kashyapa]

Hmm..... sh*t. Good question, and I haven't the foggiest how to answer that. I don't think that's a long term adaptive strategy, though. Victory is a little meaningless if you're not around to enjoy it, but that hasn't stopped Hamas. It's also not usually independent- suicide killers in the real world are almost always naive tools of a hawkish ruling system. I would still think it's possible to retaliate against them, even if you take damage from a suicide killer. I've noticed that not a single Hamas leader has volunteered for the martyrdom operations. It would seem to be a sort of sub-strategy of Hawk, rather than an independent one.

This is getting good! A nice, intellectual debate, just what I was shooting for. Keep the ideas coming, and thanks. Also, by the way, I've been reminded of an interesting book called "Forever Peace" by Joe Haldeman. It's a little fluffy, but it deals with the dawn of a new world of peace, and the conspiracy that brings it about. Quite interesting, and raises some moral points. It's a Sci-Fi, set in the future, and while not overwhelming is good.

[Victor Danilchenko]

DrBenway

What happens if we introduce a new strategy in addition to the dove, hawk, and retaliator strategies: the strategy of the suicidal killer.there is actually another one Dawkins described, which I didn't mention -- bully; one who acts as a hawk to doves, and as a dove to hawks. However, it's a very unstable strategy in a society where there are anything but doves and hawks, as both other bullies and retaliators screw the bully's action strategy up.

The suicidal killer negates the advantage of the retaliator, unless the retaliator can target the place which generates the suicidal killers before they act. But then the retaliator isn't a retaliator. He's a pre-emptive striker.true, at its core; but converting retaliators to pre-emptive strikers will also negate the advantage of the retaliator society.

Now note that suicidal killers are usually individuals rather than nations; and it was mostly about nations that I was speaking about -- or at least nation-grade organizations. Groups like Al Qaeda do throw a wrench in the equation, you are right; but Iraq certainly doesn't.

[egslim]

1. Right. But cooperation is a better way to get what you want. There's a process called reciprocal altruism that holds true in this case. You give something to someone else, that person reciprocates (maybe not immediately, or maybe indirectly), everyone comes out even.
If you are strong enough to just take what you want - all - then that's much faster, easier and it pays off better. Even hawks don't attack unless they feel they can win. So they'll wait, therefor a retalliator will per definition fight in a suboptimal situation.

My prediction is that if you could make every country a retalliator, more and more countries would turn and become aggressors, simply waiting for the right moment. Meanwhile they would provoke a little, but not attack. When they feel the circumstances are right you would have a world war at your hands. It is *somewhat* comparable to the situation which led to WWI.

2. The squirrel was a good competitor. It's hard for a species to foresee the possibility of a chunk of lead flying out from left field and hitting it.
Humans have been killing animals for a long time, only the methods have changed. By now those animals should know to stay out of our way, or run the risk.

3. Your thought that people would stop appreciating peace was interesting. I think it would be analogous to child labor in the US- your average ten year old doesn't thank God every day that he doesn't have to work in a coal mine.
The difference being that child labor still exists in other countries, and we are reminded of that by television. You only started to appreciate life after you saw the squirrel die. If they never see any war images and only read about them in boring history books, people will stop appreciating peace. History is boring to most people, and just something to forget.
Also remember that war has a certain glorious, honorable and adventurous component.
And war between nations by it's definition can't be controlled by law.

4. People recognized Hitler as a bad guy pretty early on.
This is not generally true. Many Europeans during the '30's were somewhat antisemitistic and agreed to some extent with Hitlers jew-policy. This was before the concentration camps.
In Britain after München, practically the whole nation strongly supported Chamberlain when he declared "peace in our time" Churchill was one of the very few exceptions.
During the war, the dutch Minister-President de Greer actually defected to German occupied Holland.
Both Belgium and Holland played the Neutral card, expecting that would stop Hitler from invading.
In France, antisemitism was pretty strong as well. The Dreyfuss affaire showed that.
Many people admired Hitler because he managed to turn the German economy around, creating Autobahns and a car for every family. Remember that this was during the crisis.

It'd be hard to do anything with somebody until they did something
That's the big problem, especially because they won't do anything untill they feel the time is right. With the rest of the world not having many weapons, it would only take a few aggressive countries to build armed forces. Since a pre-emptive strike is out of the question, you'd just be waiting untill the aggressors feel they are strong enough.
Ask any military analist and they'll tell you fighting a war on someone else's terms is a very bad idea.

You've raised some good points. I think they can be adjusted for, if peace is really a priority in the world.
If human kind were to evolve the way you would like, aggressors would also evolve to adapt to this new situation. Since perfection doesn't exists, stopping every aggressor every time would be impossible.
And remember that for many people peace just isn't an important goal. In China for example, human life is worth much less.

[egslim]

Now note that suicidal killers are usually individuals rather than nations; and it was mostly about nations that I was speaking about -- or at least nation-grade organizations. Groups like Al Qaeda do throw a wrench in the equation, you are right; but Iraq certainly doesn't.
However this thread is about attaining peace on Earth, and nations do have to deal with individuals and terrorists.
Darwins model breaks down in another way as well, not all birds are the same size. Almost nobody will start a fight if he/she doesn't feel it is is possible to win.

[Kashyapa]

Perhaps, but the hawk strategy is not sustainable. Eventually, you're going to run into another hawk, and sustain damage. It's not in a nation's best interest to be an aggressor, because sooner or later it's going to be smacked down. Retaliator has been proven, statistically, to be the most stable and sustainable strategy- this is not opinion, it's simple statistics. Try it out for yourself:
http://www.spectacle.org/995/ethic.html

Basically, a tit-for-tat (retaliator) strategy is best. I'll assume that you're not going to screw me; but if you do screw me, I'll screw you. This stable strategy precludes preemption and aggression, but does not preclude defense. As long as everyone cooperates, life is good; as soon as someone steps out of line, they get smacked.

It's not this clean-cut in the real world, obviously, since the birds are of different sizes and degrees of power. I believe that it still stands that cooperation and peace as the baseline state is the most sustainable- because history has been shown, time and time again, that expansionistic and aggressive states eventually degrade and dissolve. The British empire, the Roman empire, the Spanish empire- all states with expansionist agendas who invaded and manipulated the affairs of other states, and eventually were destroyed. Even a powerful hawk eventually takes such a toll in the process of destroying the others that eventually the other, smaller hawks finish it off. Again, if every state follows the tit-for-tat strategy, an equilibrium of cooperation eventually occurs. If nobody attacks anybody, but with the ready threat against a cheater, there may be a few wars, but justifiable ones that are infrequent. Switzerland has long been neutral but ready to defend itself- and see how well it's survived and prospered. Imagine that on an international scale. The nations that are still cooperating with each other can team up to neutralize the threat. Eventually, aggressors (and the assosciated memes) are simply outcompeted and become extinct.

Conclusion- between multiple players, a strategy of cooperative tit-for-tat is the most sustainable. This means that the players respond as one to an attack against one, and do not attack unless attacked.

[Kashyapa]

Another thing to think about is how to reduce the chances that you'll be taken advantage of. Cooperation, again, is the key, and this is where we have gone wrong. Instead of defending ourselves on a reactive basis, we have undergone manipulations and all manner of Machiavellian attempts to get the world to cooperate with us by subversion. This has naturally incited much resentment and a desire to retaliate- precisely in line with game theory. Hitler would not have found fertile ground to sprout if we had not brutally ran Germany into the ground after WWI; when we rehabilitated Europe with the Marshall Plan, the country became one of the most respected and advanced countries on Earth. A pure spirit of cooperation, egalitarianism, and goodwill will prevent the likelihood of national leaders bent on aggression finding populations receptive to aggression. The only reason China went communist was because of Western manipulation in the Opium Wars, which destabilized China and paved the way for corrupt rulers who bled China dry, which the precipitated the rise to power of the Maoists. Cooperation and egalitarianism would have prevented all of it.
A forum for the resolving of greivances (perhaps a very empowered UN) would be necessary to legislate disputes, of course, and a mechanism for enforcing the rules would also be necessary, perhaps in the form of a unified UN military command. A world organization much like the European Union could oversee things, too. Power would not be centralized or tilted in any nation's favor. Ultimately, if this strategy were taken to its full conclusion, individual countries would become more like states in the US, and there would really be only one dominant government. If you can't beat them, join them.
This will horrify the nationalists out there, but I truly think that this is the way to do it. This in no way advocates the destruction of cultures- anything but; following the doctrine of cooperation and mutual respect would ensure that each would in fact be strengthened and bettered. Italy is still Italy, France is still France in the EU- they just cooperate better than ever before, and despite the bumps that the EU has gone through, it is a generally workable plan.
And I think it's possible, too. We could do it, if we put enough effort into it. If we put the same effort into unifying and practicing tit-for-tat as we do making war, it could be done in a century or less. The mistakes of the past have to be rectified, and pride has to be put on the back burner. It would require governments to put a lot on the line. But it's being done in the EU. It could be done everywhere. The US would accept a voluntary reduction in power- but so what? We're doing a sh*t-awful job in charge now.
And if we don't do it, we're looking at nothing less than the collapse of our civilization, economy, and everything we hold dear.

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...And you have the lunacy, the raving mad dog irrational double think insanity to tell me that this is the best way to go about things?"

You claim that I attacked you for daring to disagee with you. You opened this topic did you not? I replied to you did I not?

I am a skeptic and I don't believe you are all the wonderful things you say you are, simply on your word. Just look at the quote I mentioned to see if you even sound like a Buddhist.

But even if you are completely truthful I still think you are naive and immature. There may be millions of you out there that share your beliefs but that leaves the other 6+ billion of us here that do not. You can and do hide your head in the sand (or other places) and try to ignore what is really happening in the world. You can plead victimhood, sainthood, whatever hood you wish but the real world will continue to operate as it has always done. There is no peace without strength.

If some get emotional about your and your childlike opinions it is because we realize the sacrifices that have to be made to insure your right to criticise, to bury your head, to stay in a dream world. You remind me of BigFig who says she is not going to vaccinate her children because there are no diseases out there.

I remember the Buddhist monks that burned themselves to death to protest the regime in South Vietnam. They felt the horrible death of a human being was worth the cause. That it was their own death does not make it any less horrible. With the same conviction, other young men have offered their lives as ransom for our freedom and way of life. I never for a minute forget their sacrifice. I never for a minute try to trivialize it by saying it was unnecessary.

I have a son old enough to fight. That he was lucky enough to live in Canada means he does not have to go, but he must remain ever aware that men his age and younger in the States did go.

You say I pre-judge you? You seem to do the same for me. You know nothing about me other than I disagree with you, yet you spend paragraphs telling me what I am like and how I think. I know exactly what I am and don't need to parade it here to bolster my opinion.

I asked if your eyes were brown. You said no. I assumed you are full of s--t, I am corrected, you are down a quart.

[egslim]

It's not in a nation's best interest to be an aggressor, because sooner or later it's going to be smacked down.Retaliator has been proven, statistically, to be the most stable and sustainable strategy- this is not opinion, it's simple statistics.

As was pointed out earlier, these statistics ignore suicide bombers and terrorists. They are therefore not reliable and furthermore, proven false by the existance of many aggressors everywhere.

As long as everyone cooperates, life is good; as soon as someone steps out of line, they get smacked.
What happens if there are a number of entities who work together and do preparations to step out of line? Something similar like the Central Powers in WWI and the Axis in WWII.

I believe that it still stands that cooperation and peace as the baseline state is the most sustainable- because history has been shown, time and time again, that expansionistic and aggressive states eventually degrade and dissolve.
History has also shown that policies which rely on neutrality - effectively being a retalliator - usually aren't sustainable, unless their independance offers something to the aggressor. An example was the US before WWI and WWII. After practically running your experiment it was plain that the idea just didn't work. Like Marxism, nice in theory, but worthless in practice.

The British empire, the Roman empire, the Spanish empire- all states with expansionist agendas who invaded and manipulated the affairs of other states, and eventually were destroyed.
Belgium was conquered in both WWI and WWII, Holland in WWII, even though their neutrality policy made them retalliators. Same was for Norway and Denmark.

Even a powerful hawk eventually takes such a toll in the process of destroying the others that eventually the other, smaller hawks finish it off.
Sure, but in the meantime he has much offspring, of whom some will become large hawks themselves and pass on their genes further. It should be clear to you that survival of the individual is irrelevant in evolution, what matters is the offspring.

Again, if every state follows the tit-for-tat strategy, an equilibrium of cooperation eventually occurs. If nobody attacks anybody, but with the ready threat against a cheater, there may be a few wars, but justifiable ones that are infrequent.
No, aggressors will arise and work together and prepare for a war they think they can win. There will be a WW size conflict and with modern weapons that would cause much more destruction than any small-scale conflict ever would.

Switzerland has long been neutral but ready to defend itself- and see how well it's survived and prospered.
Switzerland is an example of a country that is worth much more to an aggressor when it is neutral. It's banking and political connections are worth more to an aggressor than a few square miles of mountains, which are also easy to defend.
Holland tried the same tactic in WWI, but not having those advantages and being of much more strategic importance it didn't work.

Hitler would not have found fertile ground to sprout if we had not brutally ran Germany into the ground after WWI; when we rehabilitated Europe with the Marshall Plan, the country became one of the most respected and advanced countries on Earth.
You ignore the crash of '29, Hitler only gained traction when the crises started. A similar event did not happen after WWII and Hitler did poorly before '29.

The only reason China went communist was because of Western manipulation in the Opium Wars, which destabilized China and paved the way for corrupt rulers who bled China dry, which the precipitated the rise to power of the Maoists.
Right and wrong at the same time. Without any foreign intervention both China and Japan would still be ruled by an Emperor and Shogun respectively. Technologically and scientifically they would be some 500 years backwards.
Without competition from other countries there is no reason to do anything about corruption, anyway.

It was the constant competition and subsequent wars that brought the small European countries their economical, scientifical and political superiority, which explains why they were able to conquer most of the world.
It can be argued that the loss of life in these wars was more than made up for by the lives saved because the advances in medicine, made possible by the same competition that resulted in those wars.

A forum for the resolving of greivances (perhaps a very empowered UN) would be necessary to legislate disputes, of course, and a mechanism for enforcing the rules would also be necessary, perhaps in the form of a unified UN military command.
In any system you, or anyone can think of, other people will find weaknesses they can exploit.

A world organization much like the European Union could oversee things, too.
One thing learned from the EU is that every participating country tries to manipulate it for it's own good, very much neglecting the other members.

This will horrify the nationalists out there, but I truly think that this is the way to do it.
Risking the safety and stability of almost every country on earth - except those who already are a mess - and risking the advance of scientific/medical progress all for something that has very little gains for many people, why would anyone be horrified?
So far, you have done a quite poor job of showing that a peaceful world would be in equilibrium, never mind showing a possible way to accomplish this state.

This in no way advocates the destruction of cultures- anything but; following the doctrine of cooperation and mutual respect would ensure that each would in fact be strengthened and bettered. Italy is still Italy, France is still France in the EU- they just cooperate better than ever before, and despite the bumps that the EU has gone through, it is a generally workable plan.
This is where you are very naïve. After 50 years we have a single currency and some common legal and economical systems.
When it comes to taxes, anything judicial and most of the government all countries are still independent.
This extremely slow speed is despite the fact that all European countries have very similar cultures, we have a common history. It is obvious that larger cultural differences would slow the process down further. There are much larger differences between Europe and the US, nerver mind African and Aziatic countries.

And I think it's possible, too. We could do it, if we put enough effort into it.
You think it's possible? I would suggest slightly more evidence is needed before we want to start running a world wide experiment. So far you've only shown a simple model, that breaks down when just a little more realism is added.
Besides, what you are proposing is much more of a hassle than world peace is worth to most people. You're making the mistake of thinking that peace is an end-goal, which it isn't. Peace is just one of many tools to accomplish the end-goal, which has always been passing on our genes.

And if we don't do it, we're looking at nothing less than the collapse of our civilization, economy, and everything we hold dear.
Nonsense. Though many great empires have fallen in history, the offspring from their people is still alive. The Roman Empire has been long gone, but their culture is part of the foundation of current western civilization. Their people spread across Europe at the expense of the locals, and those peoples' genes still exist across Europe.
The evolutionary succes of a species is independent of the individuals' survival. In case of nations, most people usually stay alive even if their country is conquered, but their genes are mixed with those of the conquerors. Even if the conquering nation is eventually destroyed, their genes are still planted in other countries and in their own country the people survive.
You could argue that the loss of life accompanying war counters this effect, but most victims are usually men and they are not the limiting factor for reproduction.

[c0rbin]

Peace will beget peace. Good intentions will beget good intentions.

Thanks for sharing Kashyapa. But I must differ as well. Like you said in your article, we are all animals. The squirrel's life, at one point in our history, was not much different than ours.

We had no guns or bombs, but never the less, we have them now.

Even in our pastoral days, strife made us what we are. Competition for resources, breeding, space, it all folds into the human psyche.

I am not saying that killing innocents is the best or is unavoidable. It is a sad, sad side-effect of human nature. There is a peace somewhere in our lives. Sometimes we must fight for it. Some would hold children like Ali hostage to force thier peace.

The cold reality is that, when it comes down to it, you are typing on a computer about memories of a relatively stable upbringing where you wer given the freedom to explore your world a little bit.

Your reality came from strife. You wander on the graves of countless dead. Are you goign to be worthy of their deaths? What does it mean to be worthy of their deaths? To live on? To reproduce? To make damn sure that your children do not suffer the fate of Ali?

[Kashyapa]

I do not argue peace without strength. I argue that peace can be maintained without strength, and without wantonly interfering in other nations affairs and starting messy wars without evidence. What is really happening in the world is steady decline into anarchy. War is not working, and I don't think it's childlike to think that a species capable of all we're capable of is not able to maintain a steady peace for longer than a decade or so. The world hates us because we can't keep our money-grubbing hands to ourselves. Think we're not? We are. We're viewed around the world as greedy, interfering, crude swine. I think we're better than that, and I reject a status quo that requires that I simply shrug my shoulders and accept more of something that will never solve our problems!

Why must young men and monks die for freedom? If we actively promoted and respected it, all over the world and for everyone, that would be a whole hell of a lot less necessary. Yeah, it might be necessary sometimes. The kids dying in Iraq now aren't dying to protect freedom, they're dying to clean up our old foreign policy messes, and incidentally to start a few new ones. War and killing is being used as the first tool of statecraft these days, not the last possible resort. If they were dying to protect my way of life, as they did in WWII, you're damn right I'd be behind the war all the way. If they were putting down a madman slaughtering an entire ethnic group, like Kosovo, I'd be behind them. We're sending kids to die now for profit, for the interests of the pro-Israel lobby and the corporations. I don't think that war will ever become completely obsolete, but I sure think that we can reduce the conditions that lead to it. Just look at the constitution, the bill of rights, the writings and doctrines of the founding fathers- they disagree with nothing of what I'm saying!

Game theory has proven that a cooperation-based, tit-for-tat strategy is the only one that results in high scores for all the players. Everyone ends up coming out mostly even, and conflict is low. Why is that impossible to realize, if not all over the world, at least in our own foreign policy? I admit that speculations that it could be implemented all over the world are probably a bit unrealistic (although it could be done if enough people got fed up with it enough). Even playing against a hawk, this strategy works amazingly well. I'll get a link later today to a simulator; play it for yourselves and see what you think. I'll concede that these stats don't factor in terrorism, but if we had been acting in accordance with our constitution and the basic standards of conduct and morality, that wouldn't be an issue. You don't kill yourself to fight a country that is even-handed, fair, and egalitarian.

I concede that war will never die out. But right now, as the world stands, we're not doing anything even to reduce it. Defense of peace, security, human rights is necessary; the perpetuation of continual war is not. The West has been waging a war of cultural domination, exploitation, and subjugation for the past 700 years. Rome did it before them, the Mongols before them. We know what happened to the Romans and the Mongols- they eventually fell, because their survival strategy was not stable. So will we, as ours matches theirs, if we don't change it. If occasionally we have to stop some egregious monster, so be it. But we need, absolutely need, to encourage cooperation. I can accept a bit of strife- as c0rbin points out, it may be necessary on some level. But we must take the steps that we are not taking now to reduce it to the lowest possible level. Cooperation, compassion, and altruism is also part of our psyche as social beings, and those are the tendencies we need to emphasize now. Just like rape, cheating, dishonesty, stealing are traits that most of us suppress, we need to suppress our appetite for war and imposing our will on out-groups by force. We can get what we need without grinding our heels into the others to do it. There's enough land and resources on Earth for everyone on it if we take only what we need.

Your comments have made me realize that a lasting, universal peace is probably not possible. My "EU" idea is indeed full of ****. Everyone will indeed fight for their own best interest above all else. But I think that the United States, with its amazingly strong constitution and egalitarian values, needs to live up to its potential. Total peace may be impossible, but total war is not sustainable. You get into the world what you put into it. War may be a solution to some problems- but I feel that that much of the world lacks the foresight to realize that it is not the solution to all problems, and it is not the first option that should be pursued. (Bush had no intention of letting diplomacy work with Iraq- a month after election, he was overheard saying "F--k Saddam. We're taking him out.", to three senators. War all the way.) If we can't create total peace, we can at least reduce our compulsive and meaningless exertion of power, and stop fighting useless and ill-advised wars like Vietnam and the Gulf Wars. We need to find the balance between my pie-in-the-sky peacenik crap and Bush's kiss-our-ass-or-we-shoot cowboy aggression. How do we do that? Start heeding the words of our Constitution in letter and in spirit.

[Kashyapa]

Jimygun-
"Pull your head out of your rectum and look around." From your very first post. "Did you lock your door before you went out to throw rocks at your dog? Didja punk?" From your second post.

These are not the words of intellectual disagreement. These are not the words of someone willing to have an open discussion of ethics and values. These are the words of someone furious that someone holds a point of view different from theirs. You have contributed little besides insults to this thread. There are others who disagree with me who have expressed their views with a modicum of good taste, civility, and without using the word "rectum" anywhere.

You say you're a skeptic and don't believe me. That's not skepticism, it's distrust without much to back it up. Given that my entire argument rests on Buddhist ethics, and I'm fighting this tenaciously for it, I think it might follow that I'm a Buddhist who cares about what he does. Besides, your approach never denoted any sort of intellectual skepticism at all- you insulted and slandered me for no particular reason other than that I disagreed with you. If you want to be skeptical, probe my ideas like DrBenway, for example, did.

Incidentally, your mention of the Buddhist monks was not correct. They killed themselves to protest the fact that the war was being fought, period, not taking sides. I personally don't see what good it did, either.

I apologize for calling your position insane. I admitted freely in the last post that some war, and true defense of the peace, is necessary. However, you seem to reject the idea that the US should reach out in trust and peace as the general principle of foreign affairs, and only use war as the last possible resort. Never mind my Buddhist ethics, that's what the Constitution, which gives all of those rights and freedoms that we're willing do battle and die for, dictates. I think it's hypocritical to enjoy those freedoms while we trash the rest of it in the name of more power or more oil or more democracy or whatever the hell it is we're fighting for. I don't think you'll disagree too much with that.

[Kiri]

Just one observation:

Without high ideals to inspire us, there's little reason to change anything.

[Roadtoad]

Let me put this discussion in a slightly different light:

Not long after we moved into our home in North Highlands, CA, (which is one of the rattier suburbs of Sacramento), my wife and sons were in our home office dinking around with our shabby little 486 computer which my older son, Jon, managed to put together with some help with his aunt. (If memory serves, they were playing MYST, and still working around the planetarium.) I was in another part of the house, trying to figure out why our damn toilets weren't flushing or something like that, when our rather hefty puppy, Rosie, started going berzerk.

About the same time, my younger son, Matt, heard someone yelp, "Oh, sh**! They have a DOG!" followed by several people running off and jumping into a car.

In other words, we were about to be targeted for a home invasion robbery.

Now, our puppy is about 90 lbs., and she's protected us from any number of thugs here in NH. Where Rosie is of no help, I have my "Thumper," which is an old axe handle. (I use it as a "persuader" when someone gets lippy and decides they want to threaten me or my wife and kids. I usually only need to bring it out and people shut up and leave. I've rarely, if ever, had to apply it to the side of someone's head.) I'm thinking about picking up a 9mm, since they're talking about cutbacks in the County Sheriff's office.

It's a funny thing: most of the thugs in this neighborhood drive nicer cars than me. They know I've been off on disability for a while because of an industrial accident, and that my right arm is still not quite up to snuff. Many of these characters, I'm learning, have pretty good jobs. In other words, it's not as if they need to try to steal from my family in order to feed theirs. They are simply looking for a thrill or something. They're trying to steal from folks in this neighborhood simply because they can.

One neighbor put a stop to the theft in his property: when the thugs tried to break into his home, he whipped out a .45, and put a shot into the wall right where they were trying to enter. End of discussion: self-preservation was the rule, even for creeps like that. They've been gone for some time, hopefully, for good.

I'd like to think that we could really build first rate hospitals, schools, libraries, and what have you, around the world, and people would use them, and that would in turn bring an end to war. I really believe we should do that, simply because it's the right thing to do, and that has a beneficial effect for everyone around the world.

Unfortunately, we're learning, now that Hussein is out of power, that he simply sold the food we were providing for the Iraqi people, the food he purchased with his "Oil for food and medicines" money from the oil he was selling. With that, he went out and bought AK-47s, AKMs, AK-74s, T-72s, and MIGs. Either that, or he warehoused it. He didn't need to be a knuckle dragger; he chose to be one.

That's the sad reality. There are simply people out there, (and we can play all kinds of games with this one), who, regardless of the why, decide they would rather be ********. I don't care why they're ********, I just don't want them coming to my home and trying to take the little bit I own, or infinitely worse, threatening those people I love. And, if what it takes to prevent that is the firm application of Thumper to the side of someone's skull with terminal force, so be it. I value my wife and sons far more than I do peace.

As to the squirrel: I had a friend who did something like that to a sparrow. His father made him eat that bird. He learned the same lesson you did, without the illusions.

[Kashyapa]

You're not disagreeing with me. I've repeatedly said that occasionally violence is necessary. If I had been starving and needed to eat the squirrel, it would have been justified. It was a moral wrong to
But you don't go out and find all the people who might have stolen in the past, or look like they might threaten you and your family, and get to thumping, now do you? Because that's a crime. You reserve the right to pop them if they threaten you, but you don't go out like a vigilante and bash punk heads because they might do it sometime, or sell a gun to other thieves who might come after you. Because, let's face it, not only is it against the law, you're fundamentally a pretty good person, and if you're going to hurt someone, there better be a damn pressing reason.

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...my words are my words. I firmly believe you and others like you do have your head buried in the sand or up your ass. You are out of touch with the real world but such is your right to espouse your point of view.

If you re-read my post I said I am a skeptic and therefore do not take what you say about yourself on your say so alone. That is healthy skepticism. Any one can write anything they want about themselves here. I myself have been to Jupiter. Do you take that on face value?

You say it is mistrust without anything to back it up. You made the statements, you back them up or do not expect me to believe such outrageous claims.

It is my understanding that the monks that set fire to themselves in Vietnam were protesting the corruption of the South Vietnamese government and their policy to Christianize. I will look up that part of history that I have not visited for many years to check it out.

Do you not see that the terrorists of the world are a threat to the US? When Ossama vows the distruction of the US economy, its society, its people and its resources do you not take them seriously? When Saddam expresses his promise to push the Israelis into the sea, with total distruction and disappearance of the nation of Israel, do you not conceive of that as a threat?

You cannot extend the hand of peace to a mad dog. You will get bitten everytime.

You apologize for calling my position insane? What about the other vial words you used? Raving mad dog irrational double think? Doesn't sound very Buddhistic to me.

[Kashyapa]

My point was that if we had adhered faithfully to the precepts of our constitution, there would be far fewer mad dogs out there, and that unless we start doing so, the mad dogs will never go away. Security is not bludgeoning your enemies into submission; security is not having enemies. I can't think of a single threat to world security in the world today that would still be in power if the Western world posessed some sort of nuanced perspective on humanity and morality and peace. Our excess and our megalomania and our skewed sense of Christian elitism and our White Man's Burden and our greed is what has twisted the world to its present condition. It's not too late, and the world isn't beyond repair. Peace is harder than war- it takes little self control and dignity and strength to live a life of peace than it takes to lash and bludgeon and hate. We'd have to work very hard at it, and I'm not sure that you and others like you would be willing to put in the effort. I think, based on your posts, that you would rather just keep myopically lashing out in our endless little game of wack-a-mole. I think it's those who think that more war and hate is the only way to be safe are the ones hiding in their delusion. It's a grave disservice to humanity, not to mention morally weak and simplistic, to think that this is the only option possible, this endless fighting of wars clandestine and overt. We are called- by the Constitution, by the greatest thinkers of all time, by the basic standards of human morality and logic- to live in peace. Ever read the Constitution, the Monroe Doctrine, the writings of the incredibly intelligent men who started our country? I have. Those are the true American ideals. We're hypocrites or worse if we enjoy the freedoms those documents grant while ignoring the ideas they embody.

I think the difference between you and I is that you see the world as being composed mostly of mad dogs, whereas I do not. I do not believe that you have been to Jupiter because it's not possible; perhaps you don't realize it, but living a life characterized by goodwill and social responsibility and peace IS possible. Believe whatever you want about my life; I don't know what I have to do to for you to believe what I say. I'm not sure that I care in any case.

You're never going to change your mind. I almost wonder why I bother arguing with you. If it were up to you, we'd just continue running our country into the ground, our economy slowly crumbling away, endlessly pouring money and resources into myopically whacking the moles, creating new ones with every swipe of the mallet. We'd never see the end of it, never see peace- you admitted to that yourself. Eventually, a terrorist might set off a few nukes, or some anthrax, or some smallpox, and this country, with the freedoms you profess to love, would come tumbling down into economic depression, fear, anger, panic. Or we might just keep blundering along, reviled and despised, the world's biggest and most powerful rogue nation, imposing its will from the barrel of a gun.

Or we can marshall the strength to change our ways, run the country wisely and with compassion and strength. We would regain our place in the world as the land of opportunity, acceptance, and peace, a place for all nations and creeds, prosperous and free. Stop installing puppet rulers, stop bombing residential neighborhoods and weddings, stop perpetuating the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, withdraw our army from abroad, stop using foreign aid as a tool of domination and blackmail. Weed out the corruption of our politicians, end the tyrrany of the special-interest lobbies, make the government truly of, by and for the people. And, in short, run our nation as the founding fathers would, instead of denegrating their names and legacy by perpetuating polict that they would find repugnant.

Easy, no. Instantly gratifying, no. Permanent? Yes. Americans want to see their enemies disappear in the flash of a bomb inside of three weeks; we want immediate results, right here right now on CNN. We bay for the blood of those who are our enemies, ignorant of the fact that we created all of them. As Pogo said: I have seen the enemy, gentlemen, and he is us. Looking within with brutal self honesty is difficult; blaming the outside world for our problems is not. Make no mistake; there's a lot of work to do, and we'd need to take a long hard look at the state of our nation and our souls. But Pax Americana will not come from the barrel of a gun, as easy and gratifying as it is to think so.

I apologize for my insults. When confronted with personal hostility I tend to respond in kind. But I am still of the opinon that you do not represent the best interests of the world or humanity with your opinions. Do you- does everyone who thinks like you, including the president- have the strength to take the moral high road in our national affairs?

[RandFan]

Excellent Thread,

Thanks to all who have contributed. It has been very enlightening.

The bit on Dawkins' "The Selfish gene" was great as was the Prisoner Dilemma.

I haven't the time or the desire to engage in debate but I would like to get some additional information.

Originally posted by Kashyapa
My point was that if we had adhered faithfully to the precepts of our constitution, there would be far fewer mad dogs out there, and that unless we start doing so, the mad dogs will never go away. Would have been far fewer or might have been far fewer? If you say "it 'WOULD' have been far fewer", can you justify why this is not just speculation.

Security is not bludgeoning your enemies into submission; security is not having enemies. Since the goals of America are often in direct opposition to many other regimes throughout the world, how can we ensure that we don't have enemies? The notion of simply not having enemies seems to be naive could you expand on the idea.

I can't think of a single threat to world security in the world today that would still be in power if the Western world posessed some sort of nuanced perspective on humanity and morality and peace. "Some"? Are you arguing that the United States is void of any perspective on humanity and morality and peace?

This seems extreme and demonstrably wrong. I can think of many examples that would counter such an extreme position. This is not to say that we have not made numerous mistakes, in truth we have, less than many perhaps more than some.

Our excess and our megalomania... Could you give an example of our (American) "megalomania"? I can think of some pretty good examples of poor decisions and bad foreign policy but none that are representative of "megalomania".

...and our skewed sense of Christian elitism and our White Man's Burden and our greed is what has twisted the world to its present condition. Are you saying that the problems of the world rest solely with the United States?

It's not too late, and the world isn't beyond repair. Agreed, is someone making the argument that it is beyond repair?

We bay for the blood of those who are our enemies,... The desires, motivations and passions of millions of Americans are complex. Can you justify your blanket indictment of the common American?

...ignorant of the fact that we created all of them. We created ALL of them?

Looking within with brutal self honesty is difficult; blaming the outside world for our problems is not. Make no mistake; there's a lot of work to do, and we'd need to take a long hard look at the state of our nation and our souls. But Pax Americana will not come from the barrel of a gun, as easy and gratifying as it is to think so. I'm not sure that war with Iraq proves that anyone believes that world peace will only come by way of war. Do you have something to the contrary?

[Tony]

You're wasting your time RandFan, this guy doesnt respond to logic or rational thought.

[Kashyapa]

RandFan-

1. Read anything any of the founding fathers wrote. You'll find nothing that advocates rampant interference in the politics of other sovreign nations we're not officially at war with. We either support(ed) or undemocratically sleazed into power a large number of the world's dictators- Idi Amin, Saddam, the Shah of Iran and the sheiks of Saudi Arabia, Musharraf of Pakistan, the regime in Tajikstan, to name a few. We also had a bunch of fun adventures like the Bay of Pigs, the whole drug/ gun running biz that Air America ran in Thailand and Laos, Grenada, Panama, recruiting half the Nazi rocket scientists, the war on drugs in Colombia, and all the other dirty secret wars and operations, most of which we'll never hear about. And let's not even touch how we've handled the Israel/Palestine thing. I'm not picking a side on that (as both sides are equally tainted), but there is the matter of the $3 billion we shell out to Israel, turning a blind eye to their state-sponsored terrorism/security operations and well-developed nuclear weapons program. There are a few other regimes out there that aren't our fault, I'll grant you, North Korea for example. But we've been doing this for the last 50 years, in clear violation of the founding precepts of our country.

2. Given that many of the regimes on our current **** list were originally funded, armed, and installed by the US, it seems likely that our enemy list would be a good deal shorter if we'd had the sense to mind our business.

3. Yes, my comment was indeed extreme. I apologize. That comment only applies to the elements of the American ruling clique and the segment of the population that goes along with them. There are certainly many people who that doesn't apply to.

4. Perhaps not megalomania. But it does seem like those who are in power are motivated by two things: the desire to prevent another 9/11, and the desire to extend US influence into the Middle East for both political and industrial interests. The first is admirable, but they're going about it entirely wrong. As for the second, I can't really prove it. But given that a large number of firms with direct connections to the White House (Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Kellogg Brown & Root) stand to benefit greatly from this war, as well as the oil companies that Bush is deeply financially involved in, my suspicions are not allayed. Given also that a threat to Israel has been destroyed (don't underestimate the pro-Israel lobbies), and that we're now in the process of installing an influential pro-American government in a region that's very short of them, it's not looking good.

5. Not just the United States. We're also still dealing with the legacy of the British and Spanish empires. The phrase White Man's Burden was coined by a British empire-builder. I would say this applies to the West in general and Russia, as well.

6. Jimygun said that war would never end. I take that to be a state beyond repair, or something very close to it. I don't think we're at that point yet.

7. Again, I generalized. Sorry. Again, the ones doing the baying are largely the policy makers and those who agree with them. Given that they're in control at the moment, I meant more that they represent all of us.

8. Geez, another generalization. Not my best post. No, not ALL of them, just most.

9. I think that a lot of people assume that this continual war against terrorism is the only way to secure our country. That's the stated goal of the administration, as detailed in an article I read lately that interviewed some of the president's close friends on what he was going through now. As I've explained in some detail, I think this is entirely the wrong way to stop terrorism.

Reporter: "What do you think about Western civilization, Mr. Gandhi?"
Gandhi, chuckling softly: "I think that it would be a good idea."

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Tony
You're wasting your time RandFan, this guy doesnt respond to logic or rational thought.

Well, either that, or I just disagree with you, Tony, and you can't deal with it like an adult. I've backed up my points fairly well (not always, but we're not all perfect), willingly retracted statements that were inaccurate, apologized for occasional emotional moments, and along with others quoted a well-developed and logical area of statistical game theory to back up my points. I hate to toot my own horn, but I think I've been fairly logical and rational in my arguments. Now, you might not agree with them, but you've also been combative and hostile instead of arguing reasonably and gracefully. I don't think that reflects that well on you. I might not argue that well sometimes, but at least I'm reasonably civil and am willing to eat a bit of crow every once in a while.

I'll trim up my occasionally logically sloppy posts if you can argue with me in a reasonable way, ok? And quit this backstabbing.

RandFan- my responses to your questions are on the previous page. Thanks for your thoughts and calling me on my generalizations.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



How do you know?

Peace will beget peace. Good intentions will beget good intentions.

No it wont. People like me will take advantage of the "peace" and "good intentions". What will you do then?

So how do explain the appearance of earth of the 'civil society', countries where crime and violence are very low. Why not a civil planet.

[Kashyapa]

What do you mean? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
RandFan-

1. Read anything any of the founding fathers wrote. You'll find nothing that advocates rampant interference in the politics of other sovreign nations we're not officially at war with.



So your objection is constitutional based?

Read the constitution, you'll find nothing that advocates giving money to soverign nations for AIDS, food, various diseases, and development. I guess you also would be in favor of cutting off the nations that depend on us for such things.

You'll find nothing in the constitution that advocates giving money to any international body. I guess you would favor our departure from the UN.

You'll find nothing that advocates using public money for education, healthcare or welfare. I guess you are against such government programs.


2. Given that many of the regimes on our current **** list were originally funded, armed, and installed by the US, it seems likely that our enemy list would be a good deal shorter if we'd had the sense to mind our business.

What regimes?


6. Jimygun said that war would never end. I take that to be a state beyond repair, or something very close to it. I don't think we're at that point yet.

The only way to end war would be to unite humanity in a way that is completly unprecedented and unrealistic in the foreseeable future.


Reporter: "What do you think about Western civilization, Mr. Gandhi?"
Gandhi, chuckling softly: "I think that it would be a good idea."

Alas, Gandi shows himself to be a bigot.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Reporter: "What do you think about Western civilization, Mr. Gandhi?"
Gandhi, chuckling softly: "I think that it would be a good idea." Thanks for the response. With all due respect I don't agree with much of your analysis but I respect your point of view.

IMO the human experience is complex. Democracy and capitalism though fraught with problems provide the best opportunity for the most people.

The problems of the world are not caused by the United States but are caused by tyrants, dictators and cultures that don't allow for democracy and capitalism. Yes we have instilled a number of these dictators but it is not axiomatic that a better regime would have resulted if we had not intervened.

I do question much of our attempts to mold geopolitics. I think we have made many mistakes but such failures do not prove that success would have been had if America had not engaged in hegemony. Nor does it guarantee that we would not be resented for our success or hated for our politics and used by leaders of other nations as a convenient scape goat for the suffering of citizens abroad.

I'm sure you will think what you want but America is not the source of most of the worlds problems. America, it turns out is the source of much good in the world.

Could we do better? Of course, but we have done a great job. If we handle the peace the way I suspect we will then ultimately the war will have been on balance a very good thing though I'm sure you will have many reasons to believe otherwise.

Please, make your arguments. I will give you the last word. But from me, a man who does not romanticize war but instead understands the cruel and inhumane insanity of military conflict (war is hell), what we did was right. We as a nation should strive for peace but we should be prepared to go to war if deemed necessary. This war was necessary.

We simply have a different vision. I can respect those who disagree with me. I hope that you can respect me.

RandFan.

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...You conveniently skipped over my questions about threats and gave me the tired old line about everything being the evil western world's fault.

Is North Korea a military threat to its neighbours and the world? Just answer the question please. Given enough time and resources would Saddam have developed the ability to attack Israel? He said he would. Just answer the question please.

Did the Soviet Union fall because of the good will shown it around the world or did it fall because of the strong military challenge the US presented? Just answer the question please.

You apologize for insulting me then give the explanation that you tend to lash out when confronted with hostility? Isn't that the failing of the western world you so bitterly oppose? Face it, in spite of your ramblings, you are still a human being with the same peculiarities that we all share. It is the nature of man, including yourself, to lash out when confronted. It is the role of society to ensure the protection of its people against those that would lash out.

The world conditions have not changed in 6000 years. It is not the fault of the western powers for today's troubles, any more than it was the fault of the Egyptians, Monguls, Ottomans, or Chinese and Japanese warlords. The fault lies explicitely in the nature of man. As long as that nature is controlled by greed or hatred or desire for power over another person then it is incumbant upon those that can protect others from aggression to do so.

If you think of a way to change the nature of man then let me know. It sure as hell isn't going to change a phycopath's nature if the people around him decide to be his willing victims.

[Kashyapa]

1. The constitution is against aggression without cause to any foreign nation, and it is against meddling in the affairs of sovreign nations. It does not prohibit humanitarianism and doing good deeds; in fact it encourages it. I do not favor cutting off the good things that America does- which are many. I simply am in favor of cutting the ill-advised and unwise things that we do. As you can see from some of my posts above, I'm VERY much for a strong UN and other international organizations. Don't twist my words; bad arguing tactic. We are capable of doing both good and bad; I have tirelessly argued for doing only good in the world.

2. Please see response #1 in my reply to RandFan for the list. It's fairly large.

3. Well, yeah, it's unprecedented. Guess we'd better stop searching for a cure for cancer or AIDS, or exploring Mars, and stop trying to develop new technology. After all, they're unprecedented and some might say they're unrealistic in the near future, right? The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Where is peace going to take hold if not here, the most powerful nation in the world, whose founding charter and legacy is peace and goodwill? Yeah, world peace isn'tr realistic in the near future. But US peace is. All we have to do is change a few policies, permanently, and we start living the ideals of the constitution. We can't bring about total peace- but we can at least get the ball rolling.

4. Don't forget that Gandhi had just spent half of his lifetime struggling against British greed and colonialism inflicted against his country for 250 years. You'd be a little bitter too, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by Tony



So your objection is constitutional based?

Read the constitution, you'll find nothing that advocates giving money to soverign nations for AIDS, food, various diseases, and development. I guess you also would be in favor of cutting off the nations that depend on us for such things.

You'll find nothing in the constitution that advocates giving money to any international body. I guess you would favor our departure from the UN.

You'll find nothing that advocates using public money for education, healthcare or welfare. I guess you are against such government programs.


2. Given that many of the regimes on our current **** list were originally funded, armed, and installed by the US, it seems likely that our enemy list would be a good deal shorter if we'd had the sense to mind our business.

What regimes?


6. Jimygun said that war would never end. I take that to be a state beyond repair, or something very close to it. I don't think we're at that point yet.

The only way to end war would be to unite humanity in a way that is completly unprecedented and unrealistic in the foreseeable future.


Reporter: "What do you think about Western civilization, Mr. Gandhi?"
Gandhi, chuckling softly: "I think that it would be a good idea."

Alas, Gandi shows himself to be a bigot.

[Kashyapa]

1. Yes. It's one of the few regimes we didn't start up.
2. Yes. We put him in power, we gave him his WMD, we funded him. He was our tool against Iran when our other tool, the Shah, got the axe by the Allatollahs. So yes, he would have been a threat to Israel. But not if we hadn't allowed him to be.
3. It fell because Mikhail Gorbachev realized the path the world was going down and allowed it to fall. This is not a fact widely realized in the West, but the USSR could have stuck around a lot longer than it did. I suppose one could say that it was because of American military might, but it was the Soviet decision to back down and crumble that ended it.
4. Of course I lash out when confronted with hostility. Probably less than you do, but yes, I do. You mistake my point- I do not argue with war or violence when it is absolutely needed to safeguard the greater good. I supported the war in Kosovo because an entire ethnic group was getting slaughtered. I would have supported WWII. Protection is absolutely logical; defense of your country and citizens against attack is justified. I've never argued with this, and the tit-for-tat game theory strategy that I mentioned specifically allows for this. Interference in other countries' sovreign affairs, pre-emptive attacks, secret proxy wars, and wars that can never be won are not Constitutional, moral, or even logical (see the game theory stuff).
5. Again, I do not argue against rolling over at the first sign of adversity. I advocate speaking softly and carrying a big stick. There's a difference, and I think maybe you're not seeing it. Defense will always be necessary; offense is never necessary.

Originally posted by jimmygun
Kashyapa...You conveniently skipped over my questions about threats and gave me the tired old line about everything being the evil western world's fault.

Is North Korea a military threat to its neighbours and the world? Just answer the question please. Given enough time and resources would Saddam have developed the ability to attack Israel? He said he would. Just answer the question please.

Did the Soviet Union fall because of the good will shown it around the world or did it fall because of the strong military challenge the US presented? Just answer the question please.

You apologize for insulting me then give the explanation that you tend to lash out when confronted with hostility? Isn't that the failing of the western world you so bitterly oppose? Face it, in spite of your ramblings, you are still a human being with the same peculiarities that we all share. It is the nature of man, including yourself, to lash out when confronted. It is the role of society to ensure the protection of its people against those that would lash out.

The world conditions have not changed in 6000 years. It is not the fault of the western powers for today's troubles, any more than it was the fault of the Egyptians, Monguls, Ottomans, or Chinese and Japanese warlords. The fault lies explicitely in the nature of man. As long as that nature is controlled by greed or hatred or desire for power over another person then it is incumbant upon those that can protect others from aggression to do so.

If you think of a way to change the nature of man then let me know. It sure as hell isn't going to change a phycopath's nature if the people around him decide to be his willing victims.

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...Here is a site for you to read up on the Buddhist protests of Ngo Dinh Diem....

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNgo.htm

To capsilize... In the early 1960's, Diem had no intentions of allowing a vote for a united Vietnam. Roman Catholics made up only 10% of the population of South Vietnam. They were given special privileged postions. 70% of the population was Buddhist. The French passed laws to discourage its growth.

In 1963 Buddhists assembled to protest the Diem government and were fired on by police. In retaliation for this the Buddhists began a series of demonstrations which led to the June 11, 1963 suicide of Thich Quang Due, a sixty-six year old monk. He sat down on a Saigon street, doused himself with gasoline and burned to death. By August another five monks had burned themselves to death.

These acts were purely political in nature. They were horrific and were used to show how much the Buddhists hated the South Vietnamese government. They were not protesting the war.

edited to add;

The above site is not working on my computer. If you have problems let me know and I will get a better link.

Try www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

[jimmygun]

Another quick history lesson...Gorbachev himself stated that the Soviet Union was bancrupt. They had spent so much money on trying to keep up to the arms race with the States that they had nothing left. When Regan announced his Star Wars Initiative it brought home to Gorbachev that they could not maintain their military and its cost any more. He simply allowed what was already dead to crumble to dust.

Perhaps you know more than I about what went on. Would you care to enlighten me about your sources?

[Kashyapa]

Thanks for your comments and politeness. We may disagree but I respect your views and your willingness to engage me thoughtfully and rationally.

1. Yes, democracy and capitalism are the best opportunity. I don't argue with that at all. I argue against out of control capitalism, but that's the extent of it. As long as greed is controlled, as it largely is, I have no boggle with either of those things.
2. I think that we should be encouraging democracy in a couple of ways. One would be being a shining example of it in the world, which these days we aren't. I'm speaking for the rest of the world- a significant proportion disapproves of our conduct. Another might be to make the benefits of democracy evident whereever they are- through pouring our immense national wealth into eradicating AIDS in Africa, building schools and universities, endowing scholarships, respecting the world environment, and humanitarian and charitable programs at home. In short, cramming democracy down the world's throat is counterproductive. But if we encourage it, compassionately and with respect and tolerance, we'll reap the rewards, and everyone else will too. Also, since cultures do differ, I wouldn't be opposed to the occasional benevolent constitutional monarchy or what have you. I believe that given enough gentle and encouraging pressure, people will embrace democracy eventually. Again, I think we here in America are too addicted to the quick answer, to hurrying along the process.
3. I suppose there's still a chance. But world opinion is that the US has been far too active in manipulating the affairs of the world. That's why we're the scapegoat and why we're disliked. If we hadn't been doing that, and instead been giving generously of our resources and embodying what we stand for, it seems likely that people would not only respect us more but demand that their own governments do the same.

Fundamentally, I think we agree. War is hell. We need to reserve it for when it is necessary, and use it only when threatened. However, the threat from Iraq was regional at best; he had a rag-tag little country with a decimated economy and an army that we had already mostly blown the crap out of a dozen years ago. Peace was never part of the equation- war with Iraq was Bush's stated intention from the get-go, since before even 9/11. He said, as I've mentioned, "F--k Saddam. We're taking him out," to three senators just after he was elected. The inspectors were not allowed to do their jobs, which they were not given enough time to do, and diplomacy had not run its course. He did not prove that he didn't have WMD, but we didn't and haven't proven that he did have them. We alienated the UN (against the UN Charter, which we signed) and acted pre-emptively, not as a last resort, but as a first option. There was no formal declaration of war, and Congress was whipped into giving up its lawful, Constitutional power to the President. A majority of the population of almost every country in the world is against it.

This all stacks up to make me think that the war in Iraq was not necessary or justified. You disagree, and I respect that wholeheartedly. I'm glad that we were able to do so with goodwill and respect from both sides; it's too bad that jimmygun and tony were unable to do the same. But we agree on a one fundamental thing- that war is hell, and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Thanks for making this a forum of ideas, rather than an argument.
Originally posted by RandFan
Thanks for the response. With all due respect I don't agree with much of your analysis but I respect your point of view.

IMO the human experience is complex. Democracy and capitalism though fraught with problems provide the best opportunity for the most people.

The problems of the world are not caused by the United States but are caused by tyrants, dictators and cultures that don't allow for democracy and capitalism. Yes we have instilled a number of these dictators but it is not axiomatic that a better regime would have resulted if we had not intervened.

I do question much of our attempts to mold geopolitics. I think we have made many mistakes but such failures do not prove that success would have been had if America had not engaged in hegemony. Nor does it guarantee that we would not be resented for our success or hated for our politics and used by leaders of other nations as a convenient scape goat for the suffering of citizens abroad.

I'm sure you will think what you want but America is not the source of most of the worlds problems. America, it turns out is the source of much good in the world.

Could we do better? Of course, but we have done a great job. If we handle the peace the way I suspect we will then ultimately the war will have been on balance a very good thing though I'm sure you will have many reasons to believe otherwise.

Please, make your arguments. I will give you the last word. But from me, a man who does not romanticize war but instead understands the cruel and inhumane insanity of military conflict (war is hell), what we did was right. We as a nation should strive for peace but we should be prepared to go to war if deemed necessary. This war was necessary.

We simply have a different vision. I can respect those who disagree with me. I hope that you can respect me.

RandFan.

[Victor Danilchenko]

jimmygun

Did the Soviet Union fall because of the good will shown it around the world or did it fall because of the strong military challenge the US presented? Just answer the question please.I will answer this question.

USSR did not fall because it lost arms race. In fact, it didn't have to collapse -- losing the arms race would have at most necessitated its loss of the super-power status, not the loss of its regime. It was changed from within and from above, because the leading elite had realized that the current way simply wasn't working. Andropov, who was elected to be GenSec by Politburo, gave a speech in 1982 where he proclaimed the need for economic reform, including experimenting with capitalist components. Gorbachev was Andropov's friend and co-ideologue, and was elected in 1984 in part based on Andropov's recommendations.

Which is to show that Politburo started electing reformers before Reagan launched his StarWars thing (1983). The push for reform came from within, it wasn't forced by economic collapse precipitated by the arms race against USA. USA didn't force the Soviet regime change by out-spending USSR.

If you think of a way to change the nature of man then let me know. It sure as hell isn't going to change a phycopath's nature if the people around him decide to be his willing victims.Kashyapa's point, I think, is that most "psychopaths" are made rather than born, and adopting a strong-arm stance tends to make more "psychopaths".

I agree. I seee the situation as a Chinese finger-puzzle -- the more force you apply, the faster your fingers are trapped.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
1. The constitution is against aggression without cause to any foreign nation, and it is against meddling in the affairs of sovreign nations. It does not prohibit humanitarianism and doing good deeds; in fact it encourages it.



"Humanitarianism" and "good deeds" are meddling in the affairs of of soverign nations.

Where does the constitution encourage good deeds? Who decides what a "good deed" is? I think removing saddam hussien from power was a good deed. You would probably disagree.


I do not favor cutting off the good things that America does- which are many. I simply am in favor of cutting the ill-advised and unwise things that we do.

This isnt a perfect world, you have to take the good with the bad.

As you can see from some of my posts above, I'm VERY much for a strong UN and other international organizations.

Handing over US soverignty to any international body is unconstitutional. I guess you are against having a "strong" UN then.


3. Well, yeah, it's unprecedented. Guess we'd better stop searching for a cure for cancer or AIDS, or exploring Mars, and stop trying to develop new technology. After all, they're unprecedented and some might say they're unrealistic in the near future, right? The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Where is peace going to take hold if not here, the most powerful nation in the world, whose founding charter and legacy is peace and goodwill?

Strawman.

You think the way to end war is through appeasment.

I think the way to end war is to kill your enemies.

Which method has more success historically?

Yeah, world peace isn'tr realistic in the near future. But US peace is. All we have to do is change a few policies, permanently, and we start living the ideals of the constitution. We can't bring about total peace- but we can at least get the ball rolling.

We dont have US peace already? I didnt know there was civil war in the US.

Ideas of the constitution? LIke isolationism? Is that what you want? Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

Your goal of "total world peace" is not admirable or nobel. It is weak and cowardly, and I have zero respect for people like you. Are you ok to let people live in opression and tyanny just so you can live in a world that fits your false idea of "peace"? Sounds kinda selfish.

Id rather have a world free from tyranny and oppression. Id rather have world freedom. Those are my ideals. Then and only then, can we hope for world peace.

Don't forget that Gandhi had just spent half of his lifetime struggling against British greed and colonialism inflicted against his country for 250 years. You'd be a little bitter too, wouldn't you say?

So you condone his bigotry and hate?


Now since I showed you the courtesy of answering your questions and adreesing your points. I would like it if you would answer mine. I'll make them italic for you.
:)

[Kashyapa]

Hmm, interesting. I know that there were several who did it to protest against the Vietnam war (nonpartisan; they merely protested the fact that it was being fought), but that was quite a bit later on, andI didn't know about the ones earlier. Well, you learn something new every day. And yes, that was pretty horrible- I can't think why those monks could have justified that.

Originally posted by jimmygun
Kashyapa...Here is a site for you to read up on the Buddhist protests of Ngo Dinh Diem....

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNgo.htm

To capsilize... In the early 1960's, Diem had no intentions of allowing a vote for a united Vietnam. Roman Catholics made up only 10% of the population of South Vietnam. They were given special privileged postions. 70% of the population was Buddhist. The French passed laws to discourage its growth.

In 1963 Buddhists assembled to protest the Diem government and were fired on by police. In retaliation for this the Buddhists began a series of demonstrations which led to the June 11, 1963 suicide of Thich Quang Due, a sixty-six year old monk. He sat down on a Saigon street, doused himself with gasoline and burned to death. By August another five monks had burned themselves to death.

These acts were purely political in nature. They were horrific and were used to show how much the Buddhists hated the South Vietnamese government. They were not protesting the war.

edited to add;

The above site is not working on my computer. If you have problems let me know and I will get a better link.

Try www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

[Kashyapa]

See Victor Danilchenko's quote. He seems much more knowledgable about it.
Originally posted by jimmygun
Another quick history lesson...Gorbachev himself stated that the Soviet Union was bancrupt. They had spent so much money on trying to keep up to the arms race with the States that they had nothing left. When Regan announced his Star Wars Initiative it brought home to Gorbachev that they could not maintain their military and its cost any more. He simply allowed what was already dead to crumble to dust.

Perhaps you know more than I about what went on. Would you care to enlighten me about your sources?

[Kashyapa]

1. I guess this is an issue of semantics. I don't see building a school or endowing scholarships in the same light that I see funding a dangerous psychopath's rise to power so that we can use him as a tool against another psychotic. Even if it is meddling, it's at least doing something good, not something bad.

2. When there's a choice between good and bad, I don't have to take bad too. It's not a perfect world, but we have the strength to make a choice.

3. I'm not arguing with you. I'm arguing against making our own enemies. Saddam was our creation. North Korea isn't, and if it makes a hostile move against us, we should promptly act. But, again, as I've said before, I don't advocate appeasement, rolling over, or giving up power. I advocate using it only when it is necessary to ensure our survival. See my reply to RandFan for more details.

4. Historically, those countries adopting the "retaliator" strategy have done the best. Notice that the Roman Empire, which expanded for the same reasons we did (to ensure national security) eventually fell.

5. I don't advocate isolationism. That's not what the Monroe Doctrine is about. I advocate completely engaging the world- in compassion and openness and peace. War should be the last resort, and it hasn't been treated as such by the modern US. Maybe it's hard to believe, but we can create the conditions for national security by means other than lashing out at everything that farts in our general direction. You equate strength with making other countries our prison bitch if they're little enough and uppity enough. (Notice that we've never fought a war with China, who arguably presents a greater threat to our security than the entire Middle East combined. Too big, too nasty.) I equate strength with having the courage and control to take the moral high road and fight only when boxed into a corner. I guess we'll have to disagree with that. But know that I view your ideas as being as weak and ignoble as you do mine.

6. Democracy will arise spontaneously if given the fuel to do so. We were oppressed by the British before we fought our war of independence, oppressed by a regime who imposed its totalitarian will on us. We realized that there was something better and nobler and brought it on ourselves. Totalitarian systems eventually crumble and die- the USSR, the British Empire, the Spanish empire. If a people know that democracy exists, and they are encouraged and supported, and have adequate leaders, democracy arises spontaneously. We don't necessarily have to do anything but provide an example. As I've said, imposed democracy is not democracy. We should fight agressively for democracy- but using democracy and peace, not violence and oppression and violent interference. East Timor is a good example of this. The people made it so, and the international community helped them help themselves.

Look, we're clearly not going to agree. I'm not going to change my views for the same reasons you're not going to change yours. Let's agree to disagree, because we're clearly not going to make any progress.


Originally posted by Tony



"Humanitarianism" and "good deeds" are meddling in the affairs of of soverign nations.

Where does the constitution encourage good deeds? Who decides what a "good deed" is? I think removing saddam hussien from power was a good deed. You would probably disagree.


I do not favor cutting off the good things that America does- which are many. I simply am in favor of cutting the ill-advised and unwise things that we do.

This isnt a perfect world, you have to take the good with the bad.

As you can see from some of my posts above, I'm VERY much for a strong UN and other international organizations.

Handing over US soverignty to any international body is unconstitutional. I guess you are against having a "strong" UN then.


3. Well, yeah, it's unprecedented. Guess we'd better stop searching for a cure for cancer or AIDS, or exploring Mars, and stop trying to develop new technology. After all, they're unprecedented and some might say they're unrealistic in the near future, right? The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Where is peace going to take hold if not here, the most powerful nation in the world, whose founding charter and legacy is peace and goodwill?

Strawman.

You think the way to end war is through appeasment.

I think the way to end war is to kill your enemies.

Which method has more success historically?

Yeah, world peace isn'tr realistic in the near future. But US peace is. All we have to do is change a few policies, permanently, and we start living the ideals of the constitution. We can't bring about total peace- but we can at least get the ball rolling.

We dont have US peace already? I didnt know there was civil war in the US.

Ideas of the constitution? LIke isolationism? Is that what you want? Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

Your goal of "total world peace" is not admirable or nobel. It is weak and cowardly, and I have zero respect for people like you. Are you ok to let people live in opression and tyanny just so you can live in a world that fits your false idea of "peace"? Sounds kinda selfish.

Id rather have a world free from tyranny and oppression. Id rather have world freedom. Those are my ideals. Then and only then, can we hope for world peace.

Don't forget that Gandhi had just spent half of his lifetime struggling against British greed and colonialism inflicted against his country for 250 years. You'd be a little bitter too, wouldn't you say?

So you condone his bigotry and hate?


Now since I showed you the courtesy of answering your questions and adreesing your points. I would like it if you would answer mine. I'll make them italic for you.
:)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
So when does it end? When does the world become good and happy? When does the war stop? You've got all these great reasons why it works, tell me when to expect some results. I haven't seen any yet, and mankind has been waging war for the last several thousand years with barely a pause. So, all you people who seem to know better, when is it going to end?

Really. Let me know. Is it going to be anytime soon? :rolleyes:

This will be my last post. My only real objective in this thread was to vent, and I got to do that. I'm sick of arguing. I just want something better for the world- call me a naive idealist- and I think we should be actively working towards that rather than perpetuating the angst. But whatever. I'm tired of arguing politics and philosophy. The best possible wishes to you all. Live, love and be happy.

So, you want an answer?? Here's mine;

War and strife will end when all world societies and cultures have evolved to the point where they are open and free and respect the basic human rights of individuals. World democracy would be a good first step.

Don't hold your breath! My optomistic prediction for this happy occurance would be sometime in the next 2 or 300 years. But it may take longer! :rolleyes:

Don't dispair....Rome wasn't built in a day....and 2 or 300 years is but a moment in the course of human history. :)

-zilla

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
1. I guess this is an issue of semantics. I don't see building a school or endowing scholarships in the same light that I see funding a dangerous psychopath's rise to power so that we can use him as a tool against another psychotic. Even if it is meddling, it's at least doing something good, not something bad.



Its still meddling and you originally said you were against meddling in the affairs of soveriegn nations.


2. When there's a choice between good and bad, I don't have to take bad too. It's not a perfect world, but we have the strength to make a choice.

Thats the thing, THERE IS NO CHOICE. A lot of times we dont know if an act is "good" or "bad" until it is done and we can anaylize the results.

3. I'm not arguing with you. I'm arguing against making our own enemies. Saddam was our creation. North Korea isn't, and if it makes a hostile move against us, we should promptly act. But, again, as I've said before, I don't advocate appeasement, rolling over, or giving up power. I advocate using it only when it is necessary to ensure our survival. See my reply to RandFan for more details.

Saddam was NOT our creation, and I challange you to provide any reliable evidence that supports your claim that we "created" saddam.

4. Historically, those countries adopting the "retaliator" strategy have done the best. Notice that the Roman Empire, which expanded for the same reasons we did (to ensure national security) eventually fell.

The Roman Empire didnt have modern technology or weapons to secure their survival, we do.

5. I don't advocate isolationism. That's not what the Monroe Doctrine is about. I advocate completely engaging the world- in compassion and openness and peace.

Do you advocate dealing with dictators and despots with peace and compassion? If so, why?


6. Democracy will arise spontaneously if given the fuel to do so.

How do you know?

We were oppressed by the British before we fought our war of independence, oppressed by a regime who imposed its totalitarian will on us. We realized that there was something better and nobler and brought it on ourselves.

Yeah, via war.

Totalitarian systems eventually crumble and die- the USSR, the British Empire, the Spanish empire. If a people know that democracy exists, and they are encouraged and supported, and have adequate leaders, democracy arises spontaneously.

Yeah, and none of those conditions exist in the middle east.

As I've said, imposed democracy is not democracy.

So what? It's still democracy and potentially freedom. It worked in Japan and Germany.

What differance does it make? Does it really matter if democracy is imposed? Why?



We should fight agressively for democracy- but using democracy and peace, not violence and oppression and violent interference.

How do you account for the contradiction in this statement?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

The Roman Empire didnt have modern technology or weapons to secure their survival, we do.Roman technology and training were as superior to their contemporary enemies' as US technology and training are superior to our enemies'. Rome has iron weapons, body armor, sophisticated siege engines and combat engineering, etc. on the technology side; and they had professional highly disciplied army, experienced leaders, and superb tactical and strategic knowledge on the training side (roman legions beat the living crap out of the hitherto-dominant phalanx). It all availed to naught.

So what? It's still democracy and potentially freedom. It worked in Japan and Germany.In Germany, the cost of replacing kaiser with a democratic government was the rise of hitler. people wanted an empire, you see.

What differance does it make? Does it really matter if democracy is imposed? Why?Because an imposed democracy would be a facade. True democracy must start with the people of the culture understanding and wanting a democratic society. You cannot impose that by force.

[jimmygun]

Phycopaths are made not born? Please.

Charles Manson used the same arguement in his defense. Society made me, bla bla bla. What a crock.

Did society make Ossama? Is society to blame when he and his deluded henchmen murder three thousand in the WTC?

Are you saying that everytime a mad man does something, instead of trying to make him stop we should blame ourselves for his actions? Good gobbley gook if you happen to be the mad man.

Hitler's plan was to take over the entire world. It was to rid the world of undesirables (meaning everyone but Germans). He was not fighting against the US imperialism or British Empire because of their politics of oppression. He fought to gain control of the world.

Your philosophy simply will not work. It is not able to work as long as mankind's nature is what it is. There will always be people out there that want what you have and are willing to murder to get it.

Get real.

[egslim]

I don't see building a school or endowing scholarships in the same light that I see funding a dangerous psychopath's rise to power so that we can use him as a tool against another psychotic. Even if it is meddling, it's at least doing something good, not something bad.
Look harder. :rolleyes:
If we build a Christian school in Iraq, we piss off the Moslems.
If we build a Islamic school in Iraq, we piss off the Christians.
If we build a non-religious school in Iraq, we piss off everyone.
No matter what we do, people will hate us for it and that'll stimulate terrorism to some degree.
Oh, and if we don't build a school we're neglecting the needs of the Iraqi's.
No matter what we do, people will hate us for it and that'll stimulate terrorism to some degree.

If it were possible to persuade every country on earth to crack down on terrorism, those people wouldn't have any safe harbor anymore and become largely ineffective. Persuasion isn't the same as war. In the overwhelming number of cases diplomacy, trading-treaties or the threat alone of war are enough.
This war will at least result in governments taking the potential threat of war serious.

[Victor Danilchenko]

jimmygun

Charles Manson used the same arguement in his defense. Society made me, bla bla bla. What a crock.You are missing the point. This is not a defense of past atrocities, but a guideline for preventing future atrocities. manson's terrible childhood is no excuse for the murders, but it is a good reason to try to abolish child abuse!

Are you saying that everytime a mad man does something, instead of trying to make him stop we should blame ourselves for his actions?No, what i am saying is that we should try to understand how he came to be (understanding does not equal forgiveness!), and then try to correct the problematic circumstances which possibly led to the said man's existence.

In some cases, there is nothing to correct; some people were indeed born psycho. In most, there were indeed some events or circumstances which precipitated the decline, and correcting those is what i am talking about.

Good gobbley gook if you happen to be the mad man.Don't be a moron. I made a rather clear point -- do engage your brain in trying to understand what is actually being said.

Your philosophy simply will not work. It is not able to work as long as mankind's nature is what it is.Ummm, how does mankind's nature negate the viability of the policy mandating that force should be used only for defensive purposes?

There will always be people out there that want what you have and are willing to murder to get it.So? Who said anything about abdicating use of force? i advocate abdicating use of initiation of force, on internatinal level especially, because such uses can be shown to have produced much of the evil we now face.

This doesn't mean that we should excuse Osama, it means that we should try to relate to the world in such a way as to prevent future Osamas.

[Kashyapa]

It's becoming sadly obvious that these guys are just fanatics, desperately clinging to their way of thought and inflicting it on the rest of the world. I see no difference between Tony, jimmygun, and skeptic and Pat Robertson and Jack Chick besides their ideologies.

Guys, if you were willing to give an inch, or even open your minds at all to what Victor and Kiri and I am saying, this would be a productive debate. However, this is starting to feel like arguing wth a creationist, just different words. I'm tired of arguing with a bunch of hostile, irritating fanatics. We'll have to agree to disgree, or something. RandFan, DrBenway, and others have managed to disagree with some civility and respect, which you consistently fail to do.

This isn't a declaration of surrender, or an acknowledgement that you're right, or anything of the sort. This is becoming a mindless and unproductive argument, and we should know better.

Victor, thanks, bro, for putting in some good words. I appreciate it.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
jimmygun

You are missing the point. This is not a defense of past atrocities, but a guideline for preventing future atrocities. manson's terrible childhood is no excuse for the murders, but it is a good reason to try to abolish child abuse!

No, what i am saying is that we should try to understand how he came to be (understanding does not equal forgiveness!), and then try to correct the problematic circumstances which possibly led to the said man's existence.

In some cases, there is nothing to correct; some people were indeed born psycho. In most, there were indeed some events or circumstances which precipitated the decline, and correcting those is what i am talking about.

Don't be a moron. I made a rather clear point -- do engage your brain in trying to understand what is actually being said.

Ummm, how does mankind's nature negate the viability of the policy mandating that force should be used only for defensive purposes?

So? Who said anything about abdicating use of force? i advocate abdicating use of initiation of force, on internatinal level especially, because such uses can be shown to have produced much of the evil we now face.

This doesn't mean that we should excuse Osama, it means that we should try to relate to the world in such a way as to prevent future Osamas.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
It's becoming sadly obvious that these guys are just fanatics, desperately clinging to their way of thought and inflicting it on the rest of the world.



Look in a mirror lately? This is the perfect picture of what you and your childish ilk are.

Guys, if you were willing to give an inch, or even open your minds at all to what Victor and Kiri and I am saying, this would be a productive debate.

Of course, if YOU were willing to give an inch and open your mind, this might be a productive debate. You're the one holding on to dogma and idealism.

[Kashyapa]

Look back a little, cowboy. I've readily retracted statements, apologized for my errors, rectified mistakes. I've even gone back from my original position of total pacifism to a more reasoned retaliator position. You've been unwilling to give anything away, and you've been and continue to be hostile and unreasonable- just like a fanatic to any other dogma. This is not a dogma to me- it has been proven in multiple ways by some of the greatest political and spiritual minds of our planet (founding fathers, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jesus, Buddha, and many others) as well as supported by the statistics of ecology and game theory. I've taken a long, hard look at all of this and accepted it as the most workable idea for our species and planet.

I no longer wish to converse with you, Tony, jimmygun, and sceptic. RandFan, DrBenway, and the others who are capable of having a reasoned conversation have been so much more rewarding and thought-provoking to discuss this with than you. And, frankly, I find you to have a piss-poor attitude and a toxic personality and argument style, but that's personal. In any case, I will only be replying to remarks from those of either side who can conduct themselves as civil, respectful adults in a forum of ideas. Read RandFan's exemplary post if you don't understand what I mean. Good day. I wouldn't bother replying, as you won't get a reply back.


Originally posted by Tony


Look in a mirror lately? This is the perfect picture of what you and your childish ilk are.

Guys, if you were willing to give an inch, or even open your minds at all to what Victor and Kiri and I am saying, this would be a productive debate.

Of course, if YOU were willing to give an inch and open your mind, this might be a productive debate. You're the one holding on to dogma and idealism.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Look back a little, cowboy.


Nice job, bigot. I guess everyone from Texas in your narrow mind is a cowboy.

I no longer wish to converse with you, Tony, jimmygun, and sceptic.

Thats fine, I no longer wish to talk to a pussy like yourself. See you in hell fag. :)

[Kashyapa]

Ah, Tony's true colors shine gloriously though in his last sentences. Should have known that "fag" would come into it sometime. And he wonders why I no longer want to play his little game, and why I respect neither him nor his opinions. Ooo, and pussy, too. And I'll see him in hell. How nice. And he has the temerity, the sheer audacity, to call me a bigot.

I actually didn't know you were from Texas, Tony, until you mentioned it...and it looks like you mention it in your profile too. Honestly, I had no idea where you were from. Cowboy referred to your attitude- but it's truly ironic and delicious that you're from Texas too. Thanks for the belly laugh.

Let that be the note we end our discussion on. I truly have nothing further to say to you or about you.
Originally posted by Tony


Nice job, bigot. I guess everyone from Texas in your narrow mind is a cowboy.

I no longer wish to converse with you, Tony, jimmygun, and sceptic.

Thats fine, I no longer wish to talk to a pussy like yourself. See you in hell fag. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Ah, Tony's true colors shine gloriously though in his last sentences. Should have known that "fag" would come into it sometime. And he wonders why I no longer want to play his little game, and why I respect neither him nor his opinions. Ooo, and pussy, too. And I'll see him in hell. How nice. And he has the temerity, the sheer audacity, to call me a bigot.

I actually didn't know you were from Texas, Tony, until you mentioned it...and it looks like you mention it in your profile too. Honestly, I had no idea where you were from. Cowboy referred to your attitude- but it's truly ironic and delicious that you're from Texas too. Thanks for the belly laugh.




I thought you no longer wished to talk to me?

[egslim]

Ah, Tony's true colors shine gloriously though in his last sentences. Should have known that "fag" would come into it sometime. And he wonders why I no longer want to play his little game, and why I respect neither him nor his opinions. Ooo, and pussy, too. And I'll see him in hell. How nice. And he has the temerity, the sheer audacity, to call me a bigot.

I actually didn't know you were from Texas, Tony, until you mentioned it...and it looks like you mention it in your profile too. Honestly, I had no idea where you were from. Cowboy referred to your attitude- but it's truly ironic and delicious that you're from Texas too. Thanks for the belly laugh.

Let that be the note we end our discussion on. I truly have nothing further to say to you or about you.

You yourself are a very good example of why world peace is impossible to attain your way. First, your skin isn't thick enough. To achieve world peace you should be able to shrug off every attack without doing anything that could even remotely be considered provocation.
Second, you give up way too easily. We've been at this for a couple of days and a few pages of posts. Yet you already want to give up. If you give up that fast in the face of a little opposition (no death threats, for example), how can you ever hope to achieve world peace?
You are full of hot air, claiming to know what's best for everyone, but already failing miserably on a small forum like this.

[Kashyapa]

I have made it abundantly clear that I would be willing to continue the discussion with reasonable debaters. Somebody who resorts to calling me a "pussy fag" is not somebody interested in an exchange of ideas or an intellectual discussion of politics. I have long made it a policy to refrain from talking evolution with creationists, and I cut off conversations with them as soon as possible. Not because I lack conviction in my evolutionist position or will to fight for them. Rather, any conversation with one of them is totally futile because they're fanatics who will never admit any lapse in logic or false information in their quest to be right; they're not interested in dialogue or debate, they're interested in slugging it out for Jesus. Different ideology, but Tony and his buddies are exactly the same. No flexibility, not particularly intellectual and rude and abrasive. Discussing this matter with them was entirely futile. And, as I mentioned, I will gladly take arguments and criticism from those posters who are 1) not fanatics, 2) express themselves respectfully and politely, and 3) can engage in a discussion rather than an argument. Originality and thoughtful delivery a plus. So bring it on- but be adults and intellectuals about it.

[Kashyapa]

An interesting document for your perusal: the articles of impeachment drawn up against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft by Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General.
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/articles_rc.htm

[Skeptical Greg]

From page one...


This will be my last post. My only real objective in this thread was to vent, and I got to do that. I'm sick of arguing. I just want something better for the world- call me a naive idealist- and I think we should be actively working towards that rather than perpetuating the angst. But whatever. I'm tired of arguing politics and philosophy. The best possible wishes to you all. Live, love and be happy
And here we are, one week and two pages later....:rolleyes:

P.S.
Just how long did you watch that squirrel suffer, before you put it out of it's misery? Or did you?

Have you learned anything, since then, about finishing a task once you have started it?

[Kashyapa]

Yep. I've learned that if it's not a worthy task, it shouldn't be undertaken at all.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Yep. I've learned that if it's not a worthy task, it shouldn't be undertaken at all. And the squirrel?

[Kashyapa]

Lasted only a few seconds. 10 or 15 at the most.

[Skeptical Greg]

Kashyapa, is an interesting moniker you have chosen.

You don't strike me as someone who would be mocking a Buddhist deity. But I would also find it curious that you might envision yourself as one. :confused:

[BobK]

I'd still like to know what you did with the pellet gun.

[Kashyapa]

Kashyapa was the monk who, when the Buddha wordlessly held up a lotus flower instead of teaching verbally, was the only one who got it. He attained enlightenment as he saw the flower, and smiled. The story is meaningful on a number of levels; it's my Zen koan, the paradoxical and mysterious story whose contemplation drives meditation. He was the first one, too, to understand that the truth is everywhere and in everything, not in scriptures or holy men, but that everything contains truth and falsehood. He percieved that the lotus flower contained all the truth he would ever need; that truth lay not in one dogma but that the entirety of the universe was truth, dharma. I can only imagine what he saw in that lotus; when I can see it and understand it, that will be my enlightenment. I view him- whether or not he was a historical person- as my teacher and guide; I name myself after him on these boards as a homage, not out of arrogance. He saw the universal truth as just that; universal, without boundaries or borders.

As for the pellet gun: it gathered dust in the garage for a number of years. For all I know it might still be there. I used it every once in a while, to zing some cans, but never without the bitter memory.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Kashyapa was the monk who, when the Buddha wordlessly held up a lotus flower instead of teaching verbally, was the only one who got it. He attained enlightenment as he saw the flower, and smiled. The story is meaningful on a number of levels; it's my Zen koan, the paradoxical and mysterious story whose contemplation drives meditation. He was the first one, too, to understand that the truth is everywhere and in everything, not in scriptures or holy men, but that everything contains truth and falsehood. He percieved that the lotus flower contained all the truth he would ever need; that truth lay not in one dogma but that the entirety of the universe was truth, dharma. I can only imagine what he saw in that lotus; when I can see it and understand it, that will be my enlightenment. I view him- whether or not he was a historical person- as my teacher and guide; I name myself after him on these boards as a homage, not out of arrogance. He saw the universal truth as just that; universal, without boundaries or borders.


Guess I learned about a different Kashyapa.. Thanks for taking the time to explain yours.

The name I have chosen alludes to the search for truth also, but I'm sort of a " can't tell you what it is, but I'll know it when I see it ", kind of seeker.. The lotus doesn't do it for me..

[Kashyapa]

Well, actually, the lotus is sort of a metaphor. Who knows what your lotus or mine might end up being. As you say, you'll know it when you see it. The lotus did it for Kashyapa. There's a very amusing Zen story about a master who became enlightened when taking his morning dump. I don't think it's anything but a parable, but I actually wouldn't rule anything out. :D

Good luck in your search.

Originally posted by Diogenes


Guess I learned about a different Kashyapa.. Thanks for taking the time to explain yours.

The name I have chosen alludes to the search for truth also, but I'm sort of a " can't tell you what it is, but I'll know it when I see it ", kind of seeker.. The lotus doesn't do it for me..