NationStates Jolt Archive

we can not win peace and safety with war and killing people.

we must try to learn from the mistake we have done.

If we punish the civilian for what terrorist do. we only going to do the terrorist a favour becuse they going to have easy to recruit new members.

Only if we help people out from poverty and from injustice we can stop dis psychopath.

fight against social injustice its must importen question.

If only more people could understand that, the world would be much better off. Though there are exceptions to the theory (WWII, American Civil War to name a few)

You can't win a gun fight with words either...

Pacifism will get you killed or enslaved, unless some with a gun is protecting you.

Peace is unattainable for humans, for quite a few reasons. In all the years humans were around, only a 100 or so of those years were peaceful.

we can not win peace and safety with war and killing people.

we must try to learn from the mistake we have done.

If we punish the civilian for what terrorist do. we only going to do the terrorist a favour becuse they going to have easy to recruit new members.

Only if we help people out from poverty and from injustice we can stop dis psychopath.

fight against social injustice its must importen question.

But Americans aren't punishing civilians. We're doing everything we can to protect them. Every time a civilian dies it's because some fool terrorist blew himself up and took the civilians with him.

As nice as it would be to eliminate war, it can't happen. The only way for peace and pacifism to work is if everyone, every single person without exception, is a pacifist. Otherwise you'll be walked over by the violent people. Wars start when diplomacy fails. We try talking and it doesn't work, for some reason or another, and violence is the only alternative left. Guns are necessary if only to protect us from the other psychos with guns.

If only more people could understand that, the world would be much better off. Though there are exceptions to the theory (WWII, American Civil War to name a few)

Yes this right but in this example lik world war 2. USA dont stay and occupy the land thay have liberate.

Its okej whit self-defence but i dont feel its self defence if i attack before i have been attack.

eh. Do away with all weapons and you'll have people ruling because they have stick and you don't. Or because they're a better fist fighter.

Human nature is far too agressive (in most cases) to live in harmony.

But Americans aren't punishing civilians. We're doing everything we can to protect them. Every time a civilian dies it's because some fool terrorist blew himself up and took the civilians with him.

Or the civilians do dumb things like speed up at a road block because they're panicking, run away from inquiring soldiers, or show threatening motives (Think getting pulled over and having a toy gun in your hand).

Yes this right but in this example lik world war 2. USA dont stay and occupy the land thay have liberate.

Its okej whit self-defence but i dont feel its self defence if i attack before i have been attack.

In the past this would have been true. But in this modern age, one attack can be all that is needed. If you wait to be attacked first, you won't be capable of fighting back once the attack comes.

You can't win a gun fight with words either...

Pacifism will get you killed or enslaved, unless some with a gun is protecting you.

self-defence its okej.

self-defence its okej.

Ah, but some wars are in self defence. So THOSE wars are ok, while wars of just plain agression aren't?

Again, human nature... people would be claiming 'so and so is a threat, it's self defense'

But Americans aren't punishing civilians. We're doing everything we can to protect them. Every time a civilian dies it's because some fool terrorist blew himself up and took the civilians with him.



poverty breeding ground terrorism.

we can not win this war only whit guns.

poverty breeding ground terrorism.

we can not win this war only whit guns.

I agree, we can't win with ONLY guns, but they are a necessary part of this war.

As nice as it would be to eliminate war, it can't happen. The only way for peace and pacifism to work is if everyone, every single person without exception, is a pacifist. Otherwise you'll be walked over by the violent people. Wars start when diplomacy fails. We try talking and it doesn't work, for some reason or another, and violence is the only alternative left. Guns are necessary if only to protect us from the other psychos with guns.

we must fight the poverty if we dont.

its like weed if you only take the top its going to come back. but if you take the root you have solve a problem.

top is the terrorist and the root is poverty.

I agree, we can't win with ONLY guns, but they are a necessary part of this war.

self-defence its okej.

I disagree with the thinking that the MNF-I should pull out (cease occupation) of Iraq,
If they leave, the nutters and criminals will take over Iraq, as the government of Iraq is not yet strong enough to hold the country together.
I ask many of you 'civil libertarians' and pacifists whether we should have let Saddam Hussein continue his oppressive, murdering regime over Iraq. It seems to me that you are willing to overlook the mass graves all around the country, brutal oppression and chemical weapons attacks on Kurds, and millions of other human rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam.
The taking of pictures of naked detainees seems hardly significant when you consider that Saddam outright murdered so many people.
I'll post a link to a good document once I find it again.

Ah, but some wars are in self defence. So THOSE wars are ok, while wars of just plain agression aren't?

Again, human nature... people would be claiming 'so and so is a threat, it's self defense'

Its self defence if someone tack my country.

But its not self defence if I attack a country.

Its self defence if someone tack my country.

But its not self defence if I attack a country.

Now define attack.

Threatening statements? Pointing missiles? Troops moving toward?

Would it only be self defense when they touched my borders with an army or when I knew they were coming?

It's not as easy as you might think to define what could be self defense when you have one person responsible for many.

we must fight the poverty if we dont.

its like weed if you only take the top its going to come back. but if you take the root you have solve a problem.

top is the terrorist and the root is poverty.

This is certainly true to an extent, but even when you get the root the weeds grow back eventually. And besides, they're not all poor. Quite a few come from wealthy (by any standard) families in other countries, like Saudi Arabia. Look at bin Laden, he's one of some 56 kids from an uber-rich billionaire Saudi family (in fact, his family is the one that built the U.S. airbase in Saudi Arabia... you know, the one Osama keeps bitching about). There's a lot more to this than poverty.

Heres two links (PDF) to the reports compiled by the British Foreign Office
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/cdec/irdp.pdf

Now tell me that Iraq was better off under Saddam.

NB. I also realise that this is the case of many other countries around the world, notable failures of the past include Cambodia(Kampuchea) under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, the list goes on. Of course it continues today in Zimbabwe, Sudan, again the list goes on.

I disagree with the thinking that the MNF-I should pull out (cease occupation) of Iraq,
If they leave, the nutters and criminals will take over Iraq, as the government of Iraq is not yet strong enough to hold the country together.
I ask many of you 'civil libertarians' and pacifists whether we should have let Saddam Hussein continue his oppressive, murdering regime over Iraq. It seems to me that you are willing to overlook the mass graves all around the country, brutal oppression and chemical weapons attacks on Kurds, and millions of other human rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam.
The taking of pictures of naked detainees seems hardly significant when you consider that Saddam outright murdered so many people.
I'll post a link to a good document once I find it again.

I have not whriting i want USA out of Iraq.

I have say if USA want to win thay must give people social reforms.

I have not whriting i want USA out of Iraq.

I have say if USA want to win thay must give people social reforms.


What do you they're trying to do?

Install a dictator to replace the one they got rid of? No, they're attempting to get a democracy of some sort.

Hmm.. that's not a social reform?

I have not whriting i want USA out of Iraq.

I have say if USA want to win thay must give people social reforms.

Nobody's arguing that. In fact, we're trying to. It's just a bit more difficult when you're under constant attack.

This is certainly true to an extent, but even when you get the root the weeds grow back eventually. And besides, they're not all poor. Quite a few come from wealthy (by any standard) families in other countries, like Saudi Arabia. Look at bin Laden, he's one of some 56 kids from an uber-rich billionaire Saudi family (in fact, his family is the one that built the U.S. airbase in Saudi Arabia... you know, the one Osama keeps bitching about). There's a lot more to this than poverty.

yes Bin ladin is wealthy but dis is not Bin ladin how kille people its a poor person he has mislead

yes Bin ladin is wealthy but dis is not Bin ladin how kille people its a poor person he has mislead

Saying poor people are terrorists because they are poor is the same thing as saying a Muslim is a terrorist because they're Muslim, in my mind.

Shame, shame.

eh. Do away with all weapons and you'll have people ruling because they have stick and you don't. Or because they're a better fist fighter.

Human nature is far too agressive (in most cases) to live in harmony.

I dont think so if it was true people all over world are going a around killing each other but they dont.

Peace is unattainable for humans, for quite a few reasons. In all the years humans were around, only a 100 or so of those years were peaceful.
its not impossible i belive we can have peace.

I dont think so if it was true people all over world are going a around killing each other but they dont.

...do you watch the news?

People fight ALL the time. People kill each other ALL the time. Strangling, shooting, beating... getting rid of weapons only means people get more creative in ways of killing.

Poverty nessisarly doesn't breed terrorism, fanatics who believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong do. Terrorism in many forms also comes from those who blame a scapegoat for all their problems (nazis and jews for instance).

In the past this would have been true. But in this modern age, one attack can be all that is needed. If you wait to be attacked first, you won't be capable of fighting back once the attack comes.

its very difficult becuse how are to decide if it okej to attack before?

If there was World peace, then everyone would be slaves to a dictator, so to speak. Human natural naturally wants us to fight. If someone, for any reason, takes someone' else's land, the person who had his land taken will naturally react aggressively. For world peace to work, they would have to brainwash people. I try to be nice and non-violent, and I'm all for pacificsm (sp?), but I have to be realistic. Not everyone is going to agree with me. I can't help wanting to kick the crap out of terrorists, rapists, drug dealers, and Neo-Nazi skinheads.

World peace is unnatural. Like muscley people who took steroids to get all big and stuff. Or sex changes. But sex changes up up to the individual. To have true world peace, all 6-billion + people would need to agree. That's impossible, without brainwashing. When world peace is achieved, you will know the Anti-Christ (or Anti-Buddha, etc.) has come.

What we really should concentrate on are AIDS and world hunger.

Saying poor people are terrorists because they are poor is the same thing as saying a Muslim is a terrorist because they're Muslim, in my mind.

Shame, shame.

Now but extreme poverty make poeple to do crime. Not becuse they are evil becuse they are feeling powerless.

Now but extreme poverty make poeple to do crime. Not becuse they are evil becuse they are feeling powerless.

Last I looked, being poor didn't make you feel powerless, or not enough to go and blow up people/shoot people. It might make you steal something to sell, find ways to get money... but to become a terrorist?

Why even try if you know you're pretty much going to die?

If there was World peace, then everyone would be slaves to a dictator, so to speak. Human natural naturally wants us to fight. If someone, for any reason, takes someone' else's land, the person who had his land taken will naturally react aggressively. For world peace to work, they would have to brainwash people. I try to be nice and non-violent, and I'm all for pacificsm (sp?), but I have to be realistic. Not everyone is going to agree with me. I can't help wanting to kick the crap out of terrorists, rapists, drug dealers, and Neo-Nazi skinheads.

World peace is unnatural. Like muscley people who took steroids to get all big and stuff. Or sex changes. But sex changes up up to the individual. To have true world peace, all 6-billion + people would need to agree. That's impossible, without brainwashing. When world peace is achieved, you will know the Anti-Christ (or Anti-Buddha, etc.) has come.

What we really should concentrate on are AIDS and world hunger.

I think if you are nice to peole is big chanse its tog you to.

Last I looked, being poor didn't make you feel powerless, or not enough to go and blow up people/shoot people. It might make you steal something to sell, find ways to get money... but to become a terrorist?

Why even try if you know you're pretty much going to die?

the problem is the terrorist have won the propaganda war becuse people think USA are evil popel how like to kill muslim.

If USA dont change the attiutde in people they dont goiong to win the war agiant terrorism.

the problem is the terrorist have won the propaganda war becuse people think USA are evil popel how like to kill muslim.

If USA dont change the attiutde in people they dont goiong to win the war agiant terrorism.

...first you generalize against the poor, now you generalize Americans (not that it's all uncommon, but c'mon, two?)?

I'm American. Does this mean I'm going to pick up a gun and go after someone because they're Muslim? No. And smart people know that most people won't kill someone because they're Muslim, or Christian, or an athiest for no reason other then 'terrorists might have had connection to them, so they're all evil.'

And simply put, you can't win against terrorism... it's a concept. Beyond that, there will ALWAYS be people labelled as terrorists as long as there are governments.

self-defence its okej.


Okej? Lol, I can tell your username is accurate :D

Now but extreme poverty make poeple to do crime. Not becuse they are evil becuse they are feeling powerless.

Did you know the 9/11 hijackers were all products of middle-class families (bin Ladin himself is a millionaire), and many had gone to school in Western nations. Those people were not poor and desperate by any definition of the words, which gives the lie to your argument.

we can not win peace and safety with war and killing people.

We can if we kill enough people.

we can not win peace and safety with war and killing people.

we must try to learn from the mistake we have done.

If we punish the civilian for what terrorist do. we only going to do the terrorist a favour becuse they going to have easy to recruit new members.

Only if we help people out from poverty and from injustice we can stop dis psychopath.

fight against social injustice its must importen question.



Right on!


(soft singing of "give peace a chance" in the background)

we must fight the poverty if we dont.

its like weed if you only take the top its going to come back. but if you take the root you have solve a problem.

top is the terrorist and the root is poverty.
Poverty really isn't the root problem though, is it? No, we see that the September 11th Hijackers were neither poor nor uneducated. We see bin Laden coming from a rich-as-god family. No, the root cause of terrorism is certainly not poverty. Perhaps a more understandable cause is a cultural backlash against western culture is a more realistic reason. We might also view cultural pride, and a view that a challenge must be presented to the west as another reason for terrorism, but I'd rank poverty as pretty low on the scale. If you're scrounging for survival from the rocks just as your ancestors had done for centuries, I'd doubt that you really care all that much about an abstract ideal, you'd care about survival.

Most (really) poor people in third-world nations are more concerned about getting some food and water and possibly a job so they can earn a few cents (pennies/francs/pfennigs/whatever). They are not concerned about trying to dominate the world through their leaders (religious, political or other) fanatical ideologies.

Copiosa Scotia snip We can if we kill enough people. snip

hehe
(I hope thats a joke)

I think if you are nice to peole is big chanse its tog you to.
What?

**We cannot win peace with guns**

Actually, sometimes you really can. Last week at our local County Fair, my two 9 year old (twin) cousins were fighting over the last ticket to get on the bumper cars. Flying fists and violence ceased when both were mesmerized by an air rifle game involving shooting balloons.

Peace on Earth and Goodwill toward 9 year olds reigned for, oh, like 2 or 3 minutes. Kids love guns!

Then they continued pounding the crap out of each other after discovering that there was no way I was going to shell out 10 bucks or so for them to shoot the guns.

Life can be like that.

~FLG

This whole terrorism thing... sure, it wasn't orchastrated by "poor" people. But who do you think is getting blown up by our bombs? Who do you think becomes suicide bombers? It isn't the people who are able to leave the country and get educations and learn about other cultures - it's the people who are the victims of a repressive society that has brainwashed it's general population with propaganda about extreamist religion and the evils of western influence.

If the big brother country wants to minimize the terrorist threat, we need to reconnect with the UN and our core values (like not occupying other territories by force, and being a place of opportunity for all)

As for the whole war vs. peace issue, no we're not going to see complete world peace, but it would be great to see an effort on the part of the USA government that includes not getting our military involved in other counteries wars, occupations, conflicts, etc (for purposes other than providing protection for the red cross and other relief groups to the general public on neutral grounds)

This whole terrorism thing... sure, it wasn't orchastrated by "poor" people. But who do you think is getting blown up by our bombs? Who do you think becomes suicide bombers? It isn't the people who are able to leave the country and get educations and learn about other cultures - it's the people who are the victims of a repressive society that has brainwashed it's general population with propaganda about extreamist religion and the evils of western influence.

If the big brother country wants to minimize the terrorist threat, we need to reconnect with the UN and our core values (like not occupying other territories by force, and being a place of opportunity for all)
Actually, you'd be surprised. Remember that the September 11th hijackers were by and large middle class, and some of them had college educations. Terrorism is broad spectrum, it includes people of different ages, ethnicities, economic circumstances and backgrounds. I'll continue to maintain that it is a cultural backlash taken to the extreme, and that poverty is perhaps a minimal factor.

Actually, you'd be surprised. Remember that the September 11th hijackers were by and large middle class, and some of them had college educations. Terrorism is broad spectrum, it includes people of different ages, ethnicities, economic circumstances and backgrounds. I'll continue to maintain that it is a cultural backlash taken to the extreme, and that poverty is perhaps a minimal factor.


A good point, and I don't argue, but i do feel that it is safe to assume that many people in Iraq who wouldn't have otherwise gotten involved in "terrorism" have become involved (not necessarily become terrorists) due to the fact that our western evils are now a threat to their lives and the terrorist groups are able to provide 'employment' and 'protecton' (that they wouldn't have needed from us pre 9-11). So what i'm saying is that by bombing the hell out of the places that people live, work, and play, you make enemies and more war. If we had went in there, got sadam out and had an exit strategy taht wasnt long term occupation based, if we provided more rebuilding and supplise and food and shelter, etc. we would more effectively bring peace than by killing people and ruining their homes.

we can not win peace and safety with war and killing people.

we must try to learn from the mistake we have done.

If we punish the civilian for what terrorist do. we only going to do the terrorist a favour becuse they going to have easy to recruit new members.

Only if we help people out from poverty and from injustice we can stop dis psychopath.

fight against social injustice its must importen question.

Your not getting our guns. Give it up already and get professional help.

we can not win peace and safety with war and killing people.

so, how did the seccond world war end?

so, how did the seccond world war end?

Kisses were blown. It was horrible. Hitler even committed suicide and we had to resort to the bomb to stop Japan.

we can not win peace and safety with war and killing people.
Tell that to the Japanese, Germans and American Indians. Tell it to the Carthaginians. Oh wait. You can't The romans killed them all.

The surrest way to win peace is to be ruthless in war destorying all will to fight in a people, and being generous in peace. History is a great teacher.

All the wars in the world wouldn't have begun if Swed's proposal was taken seriously. Of course, when somebody initiates aggression, it is acceptable to defend one self, but defensive wars can be turned into aggressive and oppressive, as the American involvement in the Korean War has shown.

we can not win peace and safety with war and killing people.

we must try to learn from the mistake we have done.

If we punish the civilian for what terrorist do. we only going to do the terrorist a favour becuse they going to have easy to recruit new members.

Only if we help people out from poverty and from injustice we can stop dis psychopath.

fight against social injustice its must importen question.
Oh no actually you can. It involves killing everyone that disagrees with you. It's a bloody mess but technically that WILL win peace in the end when everyone thinks the same and believes the same ideals.

Logically.

Morally it's not possible to ever win peace. So I'll keep my guns, thanks.

we can not win peace and safety with war and killing people.

we must try to learn from the mistake we have done.

If we punish the civilian for what terrorist do. we only going to do the terrorist a favour becuse they going to have easy to recruit new members.

Only if we help people out from poverty and from injustice we can stop dis psychopath.

fight against social injustice its must importen question.


An eye for eye leaves everyone blind then?
Several countries in the 'war against terror' have already realised this. Israel and Britain for example. Poverty is a means by which ppl can be easily recruited(I'm taking the stage beyond destitute). Injustice will always happen, I am not condoning it. We should certainly move towards eliminating but a Star Trek/Utopian society is a long long way off.
The problem is to stop terrorism all terrorist are going to have to be wiped out which lets face-some one always has a cause they feel they have to impose on everyone else. There is no way the US is every going to sit down and negotiate with terrorist like the Irish and Brit govs have done with the IRA.

What's there to negotiate when an organization openly announces that it will kill every citizen it can to bring down an entire nation?