Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:30:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > 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.
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?
> > > 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.
That's news to me. Why do you have that perspective, if I may ask?
> > > 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.
Wouldn't that be anarchy? If so, would the people of the world be prepared
for it, whenever it were attempted? I think not now, nor in a foreseeable
future.
> 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.
The sad thing that hinders your argument (which was at one point shared by
me, I admit), is the intrinsecal animal nature of the Human kind: we need
hierarchy. We, as a species, cannot cohexist without laws enforced by
someone with authority. And here enters Churchill's sentece, "Democracy is
wicked, but beats all other available options" (dunno the exact quote,
please forgive me for that)
Hopefully in time this feature of the Human kind will evolve; but it won't
be in our lifetime, sadly :-(
> > 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.
Neither have wars, for that matter, otherwise there would be no despots by
now. Dictators are like mushrooms, popping up in dark lit areas and growing
underground until someone notices them... it's futile to think they can be
erradicated, even with the most enduring commitment put to the task.
Back to the present, I'll settle for military intervention as a last
resource; under current information available to the general public,
intervention is not necessary *at this time*. It can *become* necessary, or
not - the pressure exercized by the military buildup in the Gulf is very,
very important at this stage; but another thing is important... "dear Mr.
Bush, please don't mess up shooting the first shot"
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) What I meant to say was most Europeans that were part of the League of Nations. (i.e. the democracies) (...) According to the polls: While 87 percent of Americans recognize that Saddam is or will be a significant threat, only 42 percent (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
