Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:01:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1577 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> 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).
This is the exact same attitude most Europeans had regarding Germany in the
early 1930s.
> 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
Actually I think supporting the war will cost him the election.
>
> > 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;
Actually no, I mean the United Nations (not just the US) should internally
eliminate all oppresive governments, then purge the remaining ones from the
planet. Yes it would have a tremendous cost, but in the long run it is the only
way to insure all the people of the world live in freedom. Untill that happens
true peace is impossiple.
> 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 ;-)
I wish that would work, I really do. However, history shows that it never has.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) No, it is not. Or need I remind you that there were few democracies in Europe in the 1930s??? And that there was a war in Spain drawing attention and polarizing the oppinions? (...) That's news to me. Why do you have that perspective, if I may (...) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
