Mood : chatty Music : Morningwood - Jetsetter
Go figure 
, I do have opinions about the usage of wars to eliminate macro-problems like terrorism. Hank’s post on Talks and Appeasement Bring War - War Brings Peace, but Liberals Never Learn That turned out to be a great spot for a discussion. To save time, I’m going to quote what started the debate, and then go on to list our thoughts and comments.
“The fact that native-born Muslim Europeans are committing terror acts within their own countries shows that this Islamist malignancy long predates Iraq, long predates Afghanistan and long predates 9/11. What Europe had incubated is an enemy within, a threat that for decades Europe simply refused to face.
I say:
I don’t think the EU is waiting out for the Islamic terrorist storm to pass over. This is a threat that needs to be eliminated now. Terrorism not only affects people’s lives, but it is bad for the economy. Until it is rooted out of existence, I wouldn’t want to invest in anything that is a potential terror target.
However that doesn’t mean full scale war on nations. It means a more pointed attack rather than brute force. It calls for finesse.
For my curiousity, could you point to one liberal, who says “Terrorism is inevitable, so I am going to sit back and let them get to me, and kill me?”. When you talk about Liberal appeasers, that question is what come to mind. If it were me, I would ask for more efficient anti-terrorism tactics than spend hundreds of billions of dollars, on wars.
Hank Dagny Says:
If you have a better solution for solving conflicts than war, Joy, the world would be all ears.
No one has found one yet. Winner dictates surrender to loser - then there is peace. Liberals who fail to learn this history lesson are basically sitting back hoping they get killed last. That is Winston’s point.
Appeasement, bribes, negotiating, talking, truces, treaties, resolutions, sanctions and threats of sanctions always produce nothing and just delay the inevitable - which now costs more as the time wasted on liberal attempts to prevent war, allowed the aggressor more time to get stronger.
The US military is playing ‘pinpoint attack’, which is why there is still pockets of resistance. Total and complete annihilaton of key areas would of ended all fighting months ago. Maybe even saved lives compared to now.
Now I understand your desire for a non-war solution to maniacs who want to kill all infidels. Heck, I would like one too. If you have one, let’s read it.
You want to eliminate it without war. Tell us how?
I say:
If I had a better idea, I would be in politics exercising those ideas. There is a reason why we elect people to run the administration. We think they are qualified to make sound decisions, without snap judgement. They are paid to think outside the box. War may not be easy on human life, but is the easy way out of a tough situation.
Speaking about wars being the best solution, do you suggest India and Pakistan solve their conflict with a war? Are you advocating a method of solving a problem that involves losses in millions of lives and billions of dollars?
The problem with fighting a war here is that we are not fighting a nation, but rather an organization. They don’t just quit after surrender. An example is the continued terrorism occuring even after the Afganisthan war. Do you see that solving terrorism problems? In the process, an entire nation was destroyed, by devastating their critical infrastructure. The same thing is happening in Iraq. How are they to run their economy when it is unsafe to invest it that economy?
I don’t think treaties cost more money. Would a peaceful negotiation cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars? I don’t think so. When politicians go for war, in my mind, they have failed at their jobs (diplomacy). If wars were the answer for every conflict, then the military should run the government, as politics is riddled with conflicts.
US military is not playing pinpoint attack. I don’t think the Afganisthan and Iraq wars were pin point. The collateral damage in your solution scenario is tremendous. That is just not acceptable. For a nation of life-loving people, pro-life supporters, that is a horrid double standard. Is the life of civilians there less worthy than life in the US?
There is a reason why intelligence gets money to do what they do. They are supposed to provide information, to facilitate isolating and nullifying threats.
While we are talking about terrorism, I can’t seem to understand why terrorists hate the West so much. Is it because of the lifestyle? Religion? I am more inclined to think of cultural imperialism and foreign policies that are detrimental to their people. There is no justification for killing people in name of terrorism. Terrorists are cowardly criminals on get some kind of rush out of killing innocent people. And then, there are those brainwashed, and incapable of thinking through their decisions.
I say, the best solution is evening the gap between economic classes. Poverty, and desperation is a primal cause to try to appease the conditions. People resort to violence to get their points across. I think our society with such powerful religious influences is inherently screwed up.
That would be a reason why I advocate for a secular society. That would eliminate terrorism based on religious values..
Hank Dagny Says:
You are a classic liberal who ignores human history, human behavior and therefore human mental illness. I say this not to be insulting - but as a point of fact.
You expect elected leaders to be smarter than everyone who ever lived. They are not.
You expect governments to fix all the world’s problems. They do not.
You expect treaties to bring about peace. They never have.
You expect fanatics - whether religious, facist, communist or dictatorial - to act civilized. They cannot.
And you expect the world and life to be fair, even and nice. It never will be.
You also blame religion, poverty and desperation for the world’s woes. The world’s woes are from oppression - whether it is religious or governmental. Individual and capitalistic freedom is at it’s greatest on the planet in the United States. That is why we are the world’s lone super power - because of individual and capitalistic freedom.
You want world socialism. Socialism spreads misery evenly - except for the ‘leaders’. Capitalism spreads happiness unevenly, but everyone has a chance to do the best they can.
I’ll take a chance at the gold over a promise of misery. You have to be mentally defective to take the other option. But liberals do.
Hank Dagny Says:
Fourputt and Joy, I am calm and I said I was not being insulting. Liberals just don’t have a logic or common sense bone.
Let’s look at facts. All of Joy’s statements are wishes or failed policies - multiple centuries of failed policies. But liberals hang on to a fantasy - not real world.
Diplomacy has never worked. Name one time it did.
She, like all liberals, want to know why the terrorists hate us. Why worry about why? They want you and me dead. That is all I need to know. But if you want to know the reason we both have to die Joy, is because I am even having this discussion with you. You are a slut for talking to me and I am an infidel for not controlling women - penalty for both of us is death.
By the way Joy, I am not advocating for war. It is just what is needed to reach peace. The enemy wants to wipe out Israel and kill all infidels. You talk to them, pay ransom and live in fear and slavery. I choose to kill them before they kill me.
I say:
You bring up good points. Humans are by design, or evolution, a flawed species, in pursuit of living and surviving. That is a primal instinct. When that is messed with, it provokes a reaction. However, I don’t think we are that primal anymore. If we are, our intelligence is wasted. We should be able to exercise restraint to mollify conflicts. Yes, that’s a wish, but it is not an unreasonable one. When the fighting is restricted to military zones, and doesn’t involve major collateral damage, that’s a righteous war. However, when civilian casualities are not taken seriously, that’s callousness. Terrorists are cowards to use civilians as shields, but we are more evolved than them, and need to take the innocent civilians who will be killed into consideration.
If the elected leaders are not smart, why do we elect them? You mean to say that any ordinary person can become a politician without qualifications. If that is true, I feel sorry for what Politics has turned into.
Governments are created to solve problems on a macro scale. If they don’t, they are failures.
If we solve every problem with fighting, there won’t be much to live for. I, for one, don’t want to live in a world devastated by human primality. I have more faith in the human race than to think we are still barbarians.
To deal with barbarians and fanatics, do we turn into them too? Yes, terrorists are cowards and need to be eliminated to keep world peace, but at the current mode of dealing with them, more terrorists are being created.
I don’t except world to be fair, but I assume we have come a long way in our 3000 years of intelligent evolution. Disease is not fair. Death is not fair. Life isn’t fair. But we deal with it in civilized and logical manner. War is not civilized. It is utterly barbaric. If people want to stoop to that level, that’s their perojective.
About oppression, you made my point. And US will not be the lone superpower at the way the current global economy is playing out. China is set to become a global superpower, if it has not become one already.. Yeah, capitalism is the reason for the rise of China and India in the global economy.
I don’t want socialism but we need public welfare. It is not fair to us who earn our money, but it is the way the world is. That’s being realistic. We can’t let a significant portion of our population die while we live in luxury..
If diplomacy has never worked, why do all the countries still have diplomatic missions in other countries?
Hank Dagny Says:
Governments are not constructed to solve problems. They are constructed to protect it’s citizens.
World problems have only been solved by fighting. There has never been a cease-fire or treaty that has lasted.
A cease-fire is only granted by the good guys (US and Israel), asked for by the bad guys (the UN and our enemies), which allows the bad guys time to recover and re-arm, and then the bad guys break the cease-fire again.
This happens time and time again and only liberals and peaceniks ignore this FACT.
China will not be a super-power until their communist government falls. Then, as capitalists, why fight their best customer - the United States? Shooting your customer is just bad business.
You do want socialism if you want public welfare. They are the same pig except one sounds like it is in a dress. Churches and charities are more than capable of helping the truly needy - and I would be glad to give. People who want their government to hand out the goodies - and obviously want the government to have the power to take from citizens to be able to do it - are by definition socialists at the very least and communists in all probability.
Technorati Tags: China, History, Opinion, Peace, Politics, Terrorism, Diplomacy, Government, Poverty, Socialism, Capitalism, Charity, Taxes
This show
