Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 04:28:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
841 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> 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?
What I meant to say was most Europeans that were part of the League of Nations.
(i.e. the democracies)
> > > > 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?
According to the polls:
While 87 percent of Americans recognize that Saddam is or will be a significant
threat, only 42 percent support action without the approval of the United
Nations.
>
> > > > 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 think you misunderstood, after removing dictatorships one has to educate the
people as to how to operate under a democracy where they actually have freedom
but not oppression or anarcy.
>
> > > 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.
Ok so Germany and Japan now being peaceful democracies are not far better off
then they were before?
> 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.
That is the whole point, if everyone were represented via democratic
governments you would not have this problem.
>
> 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"
I think we should clean up the obviously (to me anyway) dangerous mess Bush Sr.
and Clinton left festering for us to deal with now. Again my only objection is
that Bush Jr. will not rebuild thus making the whole thing irrelevant. In
that case we might as well do nothing and wait for Saddam to make a really big
problem. Then we can deal with it when it is a matter of personal survival. At
least then the general public would support action then.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) There was a considerable number of non-democracies in the LoN... in part, perhaps that may have helped to prevent any concerted action at the time. But then again, the LoN had no real power to sanction intervention, unlike the UN has nowadays. (...) (21 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
