PrintSmith wrote: Violence or no violence is decided by both sides, not a single side Z. If you think that Gandhi would have enjoyed equal success with his methods whether he faced the British or Stalin I would beg to differ with you.
Nature is not a peaceful place - never has been. Volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, famine, drought, floods, not to mention the food chain - the laws of nature are laws of violence. We do not write those laws Z - we are not the gods of nature and only a fool pretends that he could ever rise to that station. Those who will not fight are safe only as long as none around them are willing to fight as well. As soon as one of them, a single one of them, decides on a different course, the course is set and the choice must be made to be subjugated by the one willing to fight or to fight in order not to be subjugated. Want to see what happens when only one side decides not to fight? Does the word Holocaust have any meaning for you? How about FDR's internment camps? Think those Japanese-Americans felt as if no violence had been done to them as a result of their decision not to be violent and comply? The laws of nature decide the fate of your wished for utopia Z and I don't really think I need tell you what verdict it has rendered according to those laws.
Never said violence was decided by one side - that was your own inference. My inference is that if we TEACH PEACE instead of acting violently, perhaps, just perhaps, violence might be avoided by BOTH sides.
You are correct when you say nature is not a peaceful place. However, citing acts of violence that occur naturally, such as volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, famine, drought, floods, not to mention the food chain is a bit insulting, if not condescending, in tone. My point was, and continues to be, if we TEACH PEACE, then war may ultimately become obsolete. Utopian? Perhaps, but I don't care. I'd rather go on living my Utopian dream than perpetuating and condoning the kinds of violence that we keep seeing both abroad and here at home. Foolhardy? Depends upon one's own "take" on life. I can keep on hoping for a better society. You can keep on believing that war is the only answer, if you so choose. I never stated that anyone anywhere should lay down their arms and be subjugated in order to avoid violence. Again, that is your inference, not mine. There will always be conflict, of that I am certain. How we "choose" to address that conflict will ultimately define us as a "civilized" society, in my opinion. TEACH PEACE!
Is this your unrealistic pipe dream for 2012? Wow... I really can't believe that there are still people who suck the utopian teat anymore? Idealism is fun during times of peace, thank goodness the realist take over when there is war to attend to. Don't worry Zhawke, the realist will protect your ass, it's what they do, even though at times it seems like a fruitless venture. And then after it's all over, you idealist sit around and gripe about how bad and evil those realist are.
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: What a f'king laugh. Because you have to kill people that want to kill you. You got a better way to eliminate an enemy?
You have to "kill people that want to kill you"? Really? Why is that TLGOPT? Did the men, women, and children who died as a result of a U.S. soldier going "rogue" want to kill you? Or me? I will always maintain that violence begets violence, regardless of "degree". Far too many times, the violence keeps on escalating until "unlimited violence" or withdrawal becomes the only choices. I believe we face one of those choices in Afghanistan right now. I can only hope it will be the choice to withdraw. There is no honor in obliterating an enemy to achieve an end that was questionable to begin with.
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Is this your unrealistic pipe dream for 2012? Wow... I really can't believe that there are still people who suck the utopian teat anymore? Idealism is fun during times of peace, thank goodness the realist take over when there is war to attend to. Don't worry Zhawke, the realist will protect your ass, it's what they do, even though at times it seems like a fruitless venture. And then after it's all over, you idealist sit around and gripe about how bad and evil those realist are.
Realistic? Unrealistic? Open to interpretation and reading comprehension. To be honest, I don't care if you "really can't believe that there are still people who suck the utopian teat anymore". Your idea of "reality" is an alter reality to me. If I choose to believe in peace and hope, that's my choice, not yours. If you choose to believe in pessimism and cynicism, that's your choice. If "the realist [sic] take over when there is war to attend to", so be it. My question is WHY is there war to attend to in the first place? In far too many instances throughout history, wars were fought, not because they were rightful and just, but for more mundane reasons such as religion, economics, and the such. Iraq and Afghanistan are no different. If we were not fighting a war in Afghanistan right now, the innocent men, women, and children who died because of one U.S. soldier's rogue action would not have happened. I'm not so naive as to believe they could not have died as a result of somebody else's violent actions, but the Afghani people would not now be blaming the U.S. for what happened. Our choices DO define us as a society. If you choose to ignore that fact, I choose to not go down that path with you.
Is this your unrealistic pipe dream for 2012? Wow... I really can't believe that there are still people who suck the utopian teat anymore? Idealism is fun during times of peace, thank goodness the realist take over when there is war to attend to. Don't worry Zhawke, the realist will protect your ass, it's what they do, even though at times it seems like a fruitless venture. And then after it's all over, you idealist sit around and gripe about how bad and evil those realist are.
You would have hated to be around when Jesus was preaching, telling his followers to turn the other cheek when they are hit.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew 5:9
Is this your unrealistic pipe dream for 2012? Wow... I really can't believe that there are still people who suck the utopian teat anymore? Idealism is fun during times of peace, thank goodness the realist take over when there is war to attend to. Don't worry Zhawke, the realist will protect your ass, it's what they do, even though at times it seems like a fruitless venture. And then after it's all over, you idealist sit around and gripe about how bad and evil those realist are.
You would have hated to be around when Jesus was preaching, telling his followers to turn the other cheek when they are hit.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew 5:9
To many Christians, it is not a "pipe dream."
Thank you. Oh, oh. Forgot, TLGOPT is a self-proclaimed atheist, so he isn't required to live by that rule.
Is this your unrealistic pipe dream for 2012? Wow... I really can't believe that there are still people who suck the utopian teat anymore? Idealism is fun during times of peace, thank goodness the realist take over when there is war to attend to. Don't worry Zhawke, the realist will protect your ass, it's what they do, even though at times it seems like a fruitless venture. And then after it's all over, you idealist sit around and gripe about how bad and evil those realist are.
You would have hated to be around when Jesus was preaching, telling his followers to turn the other cheek when they are hit.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew 5:9
To many Christians, it is not a "pipe dream."
Thank you. Oh, oh. Forgot, TLGOPT is a self-proclaimed atheist, so he isn't required to live by that rule.
That's right blue boy. I don't go modeling my life around fantastical thinking and superstitions.
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: That's right blue boy. I don't go modeling my life around fantastical thinking and superstitions.
One doesn't need to model one's life around "fantastical thinking and superstitions" in order for one to admire and try to emulate the teachings of a man (Jesus) who believed in peace. One doesn't even need to believe in a deity for one to do that. TEACH PEACE.
JSG wrote: You would have hated to be around when Jesus was preaching, telling his followers to turn the other cheek when they are hit.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew 5:9
To many Christians, it is not a "pipe dream."
For there to be peacemakers to be blessed, would there not have to be an absence of peace for the peacemakers to have some peace to make? Were the Afghans interested in peace in the wake of the error of burning the Qurans? Were not multiple apologies issued for that mistake which should have sufficed to soothe any perceived injuries suffered from that mistake if peace between all was wished for by all? Kind of gets back to what I said to Z earlier, doesn't it.
Also, if you are going to use the words of Jesus, please at least have the respect to understand their context and use them in that context. I refer specifically to your reference of turning the other cheek. It has an entirely different meaning than the one you are attempting to use.
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slap you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
The Pharisee were taking this law meant for civil authorities as to how punishment for a crime should be decided, do not take an eye in exchange for a tooth, and telling the Jews that they could hand out punishment on their own, without going to the civil authorities for judgment and punishment. Thus the start, "You have heard it said". Notice as well the reference to the right cheek. Most people being right handed, a blow to your right cheek from another would be a backhand, an insult, not an attack. What Jesus is telling us is that one should not take the law into their own hands, one should not retaliate with violence when insulted, as the Afghans did when they perceived insult in the burning of their sacred tome, one should seek justice through the civil authorities instead of by their own hand. It is not a pacifist reference at all as you wish to intimate by your words.
If you are going to use the words of Jesus, please invest the time and effort to understand what it was He was conveying with those words instead of seizing upon them devoid of all understanding in an attempt to use them as a bludgeon as many "progressives" are so fond of doing. Those who have sought the wisdom and guidance of Jesus recognize instantly when His words are hijacked for intentions other than the ones He intended. The laws of nature and Nature's God allow for self defense when attacked by another. That is one of the rights endowed upon each of us by our Creator. When the intent is to insult, and not assault, one should not respond with an assault, they should instead ignore the insult and offer the other cheek to show that the insult is ineffective. This is the way of Christ Jesus - let not your own peace and your state of grace with your Creator be affected by insults hurled against you. Insult to you, especially insult to you because of your faith, do not do harm to you and should be ignored.
Thank you. Oh, oh. Forgot, TLGOPT is a self-proclaimed atheist, so he isn't required to live by that rule.
