Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:37:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
614 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
>
> > Are you crazy? Anything which does not support the war is "irrelevant"
> > [see France, Nato, the UN, public opinion, etc]. Don't make the mistake
> > of thinking that the "Hawks" are interested in rational thought!
> >
> > Scott A
>
> Read some history books, specifically the public opinion about how to
> make peace with violent and hostile nations in the mid 1930s. "Preserve the
> peace at all costs." Seriously the parallels between now and then are just
> plain scary.
For their absence, perhaps?
The current European stance is not, like you say, "peace at all costs"; it's
"this war is not needed now, the justifications are ill-explained"
Mind you, many Europeans, including myself, would be a lot less renitent in
taking this war ahead if it were *better explained*; so far all that comes
out of the American administration is either purely arrogant (Rumsfeld being
master in this approach), or too vague (the evidence presented in the UN by
Powell so far). And lets face it, the fact the US are sh****g their pants
regarding North Korea (which is perceived as a much greater threat to world
peace this side of the pond) is not helping much.
I think this is important: despite preferring peace to war (naturally),
I_have_not closed my mind to this last option; just *convince me* with
something *better* than inflamed speaches meant for domestic consumption!
> Do you know why France did not enforce the demilitrized zone in
> Germany?
Because it had internal problems to attend. The depression was not US
exclusive, you know...
And they were trusting the Maginot line - which ultimately failed due to
lack of other options for defense (like planes and tanks).
> Because it would have cost the politicians the election.
Such as backing out of this war now would do to Bush 43? :-P
> Well sure
> enough a few years later it cost the people a lot more.
And thanks to such a devastating loss of lives, a greater winning
afterwards: European Unity *without war*. Oh, the irony!...
How's that saying? "God works in misterious ways"? ;-)
> Untill such time as all dictorships and oppressive governments are removed from
> the Earth; peace is and will be a dangerous idealistic delusion.
The difference between our POVs is that you prefer to actively chase the
dictators, and end up creating a cycle of "support one bad guy to help wipe
another one", à la Iran/Iraq in the eighties; I, on the other hand, prefer
to *avoid NEW bad guys* while waiting for Mother Nature to kill the current
ones :-)
A parallell can be drawn: you pursue healing of the disease and I seek the
vaccine for it. They are not incompatible, but my success can get you out of
work ;-)
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) This is the exact same attitude most Europeans had regarding Germany in the early 1930s. (...) Actually I think supporting the war will cost him the election. (...) from (...) Actually no, I mean the United Nations (not just the US) should (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Read some history books, specifically the public opinion about how to make peace with violent and hostile nations in the mid 1930s. "Preserve the peace at all costs." Seriously the parallels between now and then are just plain scary. Do you (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
