A question for the pacifists here

[Henry Rollins]

How would you have stopped Hitler?

~rougerum

 

[The Wanderer]

they would have sent Jesse Jackson to mediate

 

[LuvLady]

Jesse Jackson makes me gag.

[This message has been edited by LuvLady (edited 09-28-2001).]

 

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by LuvLady:
Jesse Jackson makes me gag.

[This message has been edited by LuvLady (edited 09-28-2001).]

tuesdaywednesdaythursday!
tuesdaywednesdaythursday!

------------------
i'm a reasonable man
get off my case

 

[melon]

I'm stepping aside from this, but just as a point of note, after the Allies won World War II, Winston Churchill wanted to just shoot the captured Nazi leaders on the spot. However, for once, it was the U.S. who was the voice of reason here, as Harry Truman insisted on the unprecedented idea of putting them on trial for all the world to see, as a testament to our advancement in civilization. Just blowing in and shooting them all dead, Truman reasoned, would only fuel the enemies they tried to destroy.

And perhaps that has been my stance all along. Some people in this forum have advocated a Churchill-esque approach to this conflict: a "the U.S. can't blow enough up" approach. That's what I balk at. And when I criticize along the lines of Truman here, I'm labelled "unpatriotic" or "bleeding-heart liberal."

All I've ever asked the "warmongers" to do is to step back and reevaluate for the greater good. Sometimes, that involves reevaluating the U.S.'s role in the Islamic sphere of influence, which is often questionable at times. Bin Laden just didn't arbitrarily, one day, pick the U.S. as his target. Even if I criticize that, I'm labelled as "unpatriotic," and several professionals around the country have been fired for doing the same thing in the last two weeks. So much for that "freedom" we were defending...

But I digress. I refuse to take a stance on this war anymore. The course of action has been preordained by people far more important than myself, and what I think amounts to a pile of shit.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Rono]

Glad that Japan attacked pearl habour.
Whitout this attack, America would never
fight in WW II

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by melon:
Sometimes, that involves reevaluating the U.S.'s role in the Islamic sphere of influence, which is often questionable at times. Bin Laden just didn't arbitrarily, one day, pick the U.S. as his target.

True, to an extent. I do believe that Israel needs to be much more sensitive to the Palestinian cause than they have been to date. But I do not think Isreal needs to be wiped out of existence, as "The Osama" claims. He is racist in his desire to remove them from the region, much like Hitler was in his desire to remove the Jews from Europe. And his selection of the U.S. as a target is attributable to his view towards ALL "non-Muslim" or "Western-friendly" presences in the Middle East.

One of these days people will take off their thick, politically correct shades and realize tha individuals like "The Osama" and organizations like The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are just as racist and discriminatory and supremacist as the Nazis and the KKK. Political Correctness just doesn't want to admit that because these groups are not "European" or "American."

And, P.S., the increasing devesatation in Europe and threats to the Phillipines, Australia (and even China) would have likely emitted a U.S. response in WW2, even without the Pearl Harbor attack.

~U2Alabama


[This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 09-29-2001).]

 

[diamondbruno9]

Good thread-Rouger
D
B
9

------------------
"..it's about breaking barriers, transcending boundries and conquering great divides"-Bono 1987

---------
An open letter to Bono from myself www.arizonaautoweb.com/bono/

 

[Marko]

Rolins I'm not what you say a pacifist, and when you ask about Hitler he deserved what he got, but I would like to see all the UK, US, Franch and others that killed thousands and thousands of civilianc with napalm, for instance in Hamburg, on trail for war crime.
I'm glad that it started, but we (or you) have to be carefoul - there are already 4 milion refugees from the US atacks - inocent civilians
And I wouldn't do what the US did to Japan by nuking them and killing, again, a big number of civilians - I would put those people on trial also

Good luck to all your soldiers, and good luck to all the inocent afganistanis out there. I pray for all of them (to chatolic god by the way)

 

[AM]

Originally posted by Henry Rollins:
How would you have stopped Hitler?

~rougerum

change the envirement so that people like Hitler or Saddam or Bin Laden don?t the right envirement to spread their ideas. This is an enviremental and social problem, not just a political one.
That?s what we should be focusing on right now. Make the world a place where everybody is able to live a good life. If you seed evil, you will get evil.


[This message has been edited by AM (edited 10-10-2001).]

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by AM:

change the envirement so that people like Hitler or Saddam or Bin Laden don?t the right envirement to spread their ideas. This is an enviremental and social problem, not just a political one.
That?s what we should be focusing on right now. Make the world a place where everybody is able to live a good life. If you seed evil, you will get evil.


[This message has been edited by AM (edited 10-10-2001).]

I.e., try to get everyone in the Middle East to get along? Good luck.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Originally posted by melon:
I'm stepping aside from this, but just as a point of note, after the Allies won World War II, Winston Churchill wanted to just shoot the captured Nazi leaders on the spot. However, for once, it was the U.S. who was the voice of reason here, as Harry Truman insisted on the unprecedented idea of putting them on trial for all the world to see, as a testament to our advancement in civilization. Just blowing in and shooting them all dead, Truman reasoned, would only fuel the enemies they tried to destroy.

And perhaps that has been my stance all along. Some people in this forum have advocated a Churchill-esque approach to this conflict: a "the U.S. can't blow enough up" approach. That's what I balk at. And when I criticize along the lines of Truman here, I'm labelled "unpatriotic" or "bleeding-heart liberal."

All I've ever asked the "warmongers" to do is to step back and reevaluate for the greater good. Sometimes, that involves reevaluating the U.S.'s role in the Islamic sphere of influence, which is often questionable at times. Bin Laden just didn't arbitrarily, one day, pick the U.S. as his target. Even if I criticize that, I'm labelled as "unpatriotic," and several professionals around the country have been fired for doing the same thing in the last two weeks. So much for that "freedom" we were defending...

But I digress. I refuse to take a stance on this war anymore. The course of action has been preordained by people far more important than myself, and what I think amounts to a pile of shit.

Melon

Wow...you totally took the words right out of my mouth, melon. I've been so conflicted these last weeks, not really sure one way or another how I felt about things. But now after Sunday, I'm finally clear on it all.