ATTENTION: Just a thankyou will do

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Remember, mtliveingtree is just a parrot...he really doesn't have a LOT to say.

An interesting article in yesterday's WSJ. Stated the the x-CIA director admits that the administration "stretched" the facts in regards to Iraq's WMD in order to justify the war. Pretty cut and dry.

Even an unpolitical type like me couldn't help be know that US action was unjustified before the war...All I heard was how the UN inspectors weren't finding anything, that the Iraqis were cooperating, and that we were going to attack them anyway. Why do you think there was an unpresented level of pre-war protest?

i disagree time will tell and if i am wrong i will admit it but for now i feel he had and did hide wmd. just a thankyou will do

You don't have to wait for time to tell - all the information is out there. You just need to pull yourself away from your keyboard and do a spot of research.

BTW, thank you Ireland for your post (#190). We clearly see how insane Saddam was for killing "his own" people (like it makes a big difference in morality), because he mistakenly perceived them to be a threat or burden, but from the US president to the combat leader to the foot soldier, we end up killing people for the exact same reason. Some might not agree with or see the similarity here, but they are - they're fueled by panic, paranoia and power trips. Bush said that Saddam is a monster, well it's looking like the U.S. is a monster too...just maybe a less barbaric one.

And rowdyrjp, thanks for your comments in response to trisha6. trisha6's thinking is that typical tunnel vision type that keeps the killings a reality. People so often take negative, self-centered actions, cause great damage, ignore it, and look for the fraction of positive or desired results...and conclude that they "did the right thing". Scary...and the reason why we behave like we do. Yes, in some cases we take action, knowing that there will be negative repercussions, knowing that the good will outweigh the bad. Like taking high blood pressure meds knowing that they damage the liver, because the high blood pressure is the more severe problem. But we take these actions (or meds) because supposedly it's the best we know how, or believe. But that's where the problem lies. The US military action took a hyper-aggressive approach to a problem, fueled by great self-centered ego and power based benefits. If years and thousands of hours of R&D can produce the best meds we have, it's probably the best thing...to take them knowing the side effects. But the US didn't employ the scientific method here. I'm sure there were many ways to remove Saddam from power without a full scale war. Bush couldn't brag about a covert CIA hitman operation assassinating Hussain like he could with the glory of all the US military might. Ever see two 8 year old boys playing with army men in the sand box...making explosion sounds and playing war? Why do you think little boys do that? Bcause they LIKE it! It's fun to destroy. You won't see the boys negotiating for a peaceful resolution in the sandbox. They're dying to go to war! Bush and the rest of us pro-war types are just the same way...fueled by the same adolescent motivations, but with bigger brains, useful only to try and come up with clever* justifications for playing war in the sandbox.

* Not in this case. Bush's motives were never that clever...and he only fooled those who are dying to go to war for any reason. All the rest hopped to it and protested.

Yes, Tdog, the name "Operation Iraqi Freddom" was a nice little spin wasn't it. Up to then it was about al-qaida terrorist links (Saddam apparently friendly with Islamic fundamentalists, er, no, don't think so) Then came the great WMD debacle, but the UN not so convinced (something to with utter lack of any evidence whatsoever). So what wsa left? What could swing public opinion to US favour. Oh, yes... Liberation. Now we were liberators and everyone had a warm feeling inside. And look how many people fell for that obvious piece of manipulation.

I particularly like this poster.

Curley Joe, how can the anti-war protest be treated be called propaganda. All we have done is dig behind governmental lies and spin to dig out another side of the story, what we happen to believe is the corre t side considering it is weighted with factual evidence, factual history. We're not subtley telling people to think in a certain way but rather challenge what is being said over the media. It is then down to the individual to decide. We are simply the other side of the story.

WEll theres two more dead henchman,murder,torturer, and raperist of thousands of people. Told ya it would be just a matter of time and they would be caught or killed as so will saddam the coward and ben laden the murder. Remember just a thankyou will do.

So hurrah..... {puke} ... the great and powerful USA has killed two more people ... so what?


Was there any doubt that they would if they found them?

Geez, I hope the poor buggers went down fighting.

And yes, until such a time as any of the former leaders are actually convicted of anything warranting these vigilante executions ... I do sympathize with them.

I have no reason to assume they are guilty of any "allegations" considering the USA/UK lied about so many other things.... this could just be another lie for all any of us actually knows.

So hurrah..... {puke} ... the great and powerful USA has killed two more people ... so what?

That's just what we said, with the excpetion of the {puke}. Two more enemy vermin sent to Allah and 72 virgins for Uday to rape and torture.

Geez, I hope the poor buggers went down fighting.

And yes, until such a time as any of the former leaders are actually convicted of anything warranting these vigilante executions ... I do sympathize with them.

YES! Finally an admission of what Rowdyrjp truly stands for!

Now please examine the kind of person Rowdy Osama here 'sympathizes' with.

From the very Left-leaning, not-too-kind-to-Bush-and-America UK Guardian no-less.

*****

Uday Hussein: A Monster of rape, torture and Murder.

The Guardian 7-23-03

(Fair use)

He was a monster even by the standards of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a sadist with a taste for cruelty so extreme that even his father was forced to acknowledge that his first-born son would not be a worthy heir. And yet for all that Uday Saddam Hussein symbolised the brutality of the Iraqi regime, his powers were severely circumscribed. Although he retained the privileges of the much-indulged son of a dictator, he was shunted from the real centres of power in the military and security services by his quieter, younger brother Qusay.

Although Uday nominally had a role in politics - following his election to parliament with 99% of the vote in 1999 - he was studiously absent from Iraqi television during the dying days of the regime.

It was clear controllers realised that showing too many pictures of the most hated man in Iraq was hardly going to spur resistance.

It was not the life that Uday had intended. Of Saddam's two sons, he was the flamboyant one - towering well over 6ft, with a penchant for fast cars and loud and drunken parties, expensive suits and flowing robes, as well as murder, rape and torture.

His public duties ranged from the Iraqi Olympic Committee and the national football team, to Babel, supposedly an independent newspaper, and Shabab, or youth television, to the Iraqi Photographers' Association. He also was in charge of the dreaded Saddam Fedayeen militia.

For those unfortunate enough to have strayed across his path, Uday's reasons for taking on such a public life were pathetic: he wanted to build a public profile in preparation for taking over from Saddam.

The search for public approbation appears to have taken over in the mid-1980s when Uday first took a close interest in sport. Footballers say he never really understood or showed much interest in the game itself, but was desperate enough for a win that he would phone up the dressing room during half-time to threaten to cut off players' legs and throw them to ravenous dogs.

As football overseer, Uday kept a private torture scorecard, with written instructions on how many times each player should be beaten on the soles of his feet after a particularly poor showing.

He also carried a grudge. "Once you came to Uday's notice, he never left you alone. The only time I managed to get away from his eyes was when I went outside Iraq," star performer Habib Jaffar told the Guardian last April.

Uday's excesses carried over in his private life where he had a reputation for ordering any girl or woman who caught his eye to be brought to his private pleasure dome.

The palace, a bad taste Arabian nights fantasy, was decorated with indoor fountains and erotic murals and was in the grounds of his father's presidential estate. A nearby chamber contained huge stashes of drugs as well as an HIV testing kit, according to US forces.

He is also reported to have operated an even more private torture chamber on the banks of the Tigris.

But his brutality finally caught up with him. In 1988 he bludgeoned to death his father's bodyguard Kamal Hana Jajo in front of horrified partygoers.

He also shot one of his uncles in the leg. The murder, shootings, and other erratic behaviour put him in permanent disfavour with Saddam. He was briefly exiled to Switzerland and, while he was allowed to return to Iraq, he was never again deemed suitable for succession.

Uday's marriages were a further source of embarrassment to his father.

His two brief dynastic liaisons - with the daughters of a senior Ba'ath party aide of Saddam and an uncle - were dissolved after Uday beat up his brides.

His remove from power grew even greater in 1996 when gunmen fired on his red Porsche as it sped through the streets of Baghdad. The attack left the scion of Saddam able to walk only with great difficulty.

It also appears to have deepened his rage against his fellow Iraqis. Sports figures in Iraq say he had come to see his duties at the Olympic committee only as a source of ready cash. His cruelty, already legendary, deepened.

*****

But Rowdy Osama here sypathizes with poor Uday who is now deaday.

Thanks for illustrating your complete loyalty to butchers, rapists and madmen if they fit into your Agenda of trashing America.

but what makes the fruits of these deaths so nice ROUWDDRIP is it puts buttheads like you in your place where you belong with the rest of the scum we step on like saddam and his whimpy wanna be sons. And whaT IS EVEN A SWEETER FRUIT IS SADDAM AND BEN LADEN WILL BE NEXT. What think of that drip. God Bless America and for what she stands for. Even maggots like you are excepted in the usa drip. Just A Thankyou will do.

To INVAR:

Yes, once again we see how clever you are rhyming Uday and Qusay with deaday......wow what a brilliant wit, we are all so very impressed over here.

As for responding to this post, most of it is cut and paste that I responded to on another thread... read that one.

Remember, no one is guilty of anything until it is proven!!!!

Criminal justice 101.

Remember, no one is guilty of anything until it is proven!!!!

Criminal justice 101.

In the application of geopolitics and history to such an absurd notion, Rowdy BB Osama here MUST believe that Hitler is innocent of the charges of genocide of the Jews....after all, no one is guilty of anything until it is proven.

And thusfar, there is no evidence linking Hitler to killing any Jews.

Such is the logic of Rowdy BB Osama.

Give him a hand....he works awful hard to illustrate himself the complete buffoon in every post he makes.

For the umpteenth time Hitler was a genocidal monster who attacked the world!!!!!!

You have no proof he was a genocidal monster. He never made it to trial according to your logic.

Plus he didn't 'attack the world'. He said he was INVITED into Poland, Chekoslovakia and then liberated France and Russia because they threatened him with force for refusing to leave.

I mean, who are you hate-filled nazi-phobes gonna believe? The Allies or Hitler? Judging by your standards Rowdy BB - the UN should definitely side with Adolf on that score.

We did not NEED any other reason to fight him since self defense is the best reason of all.

BINGO.

Except in an age of proliferated nuclear and biological weapons, troops aren't exactly going to be massing on your borders in order for you to shout "self defense!"

It will be a bright flash or a big poison cloud that kills millions in moments, but then you're too late to really defend against it aren't you?

However you are factually wrong in your assessment that no evidence linking Hitler to killing any Jews exists.

According to you, he wasn't brought to trial, so we must presume him innocent until proven guilty. Since he wasn't able to defend himself in court, by your logic - we must assume him NOT GUILTY by our Western standards of law.

Are you completely ignorant to history?

No, I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd.

Hey! I gotta gameshow for you!

Ask Lodgebo about it.

You'll make a FINE contestant.

After the war... when the concentration camps were liberated and investigated the Nuremberg trials convicted the surviving leaders of the Third Reich... no conviction really necessary for Adolf as he was dead.

Now extrapolate the same scenario to the Sadaam Brothers nitwit.

Same deal, case closed, we have the evidence and the trials are gonna begin soon for the surviving Baathists.

Davedom,
Just turn our back hey? Turn a blind eye? That woul suite you right?

your government cocked up after 9/11 by wasting the goodwill that most of the world felt towards America.

Why? Because allowing to let the world feel sorry for us was the solution to the Jihad problem?

I'm sure you would like for us to believe that.

No, much of the Leftist and Islamic world went pissed-off the moment we brushed off the dust and debris and went a-hunting.

The world was fine with us sobbing and mourning, but the moment we got up to ensure such a thing would never happen to us again, you people started screaming in rage.

Christ, even Arafat was shocked by the attack.

Is that what you call it when Palestinians were dancing in the streets? I think Arafat's shock was that his pals actually pulled it off.


Bush and the neo-cons must take full blame for this wasted opportunity.

What? The 'opportunity' to sit and wallow in grief indefinitely while the UN endlessly debates and passes useless Resolutions of condemnation???

I'm sure that is exactly the response Al Qaeda and the Taliban were hoping for, since that was what we had been doing since their Jihad began in Nov. 1997 - NOTHING.

Secondly America has never apologised for the things it has done over the last 50 or 60 years.

Well allow me to be the first to publicly state that I apologize that America EVER saved France and you Europeans from the Nazis, spent billions of our own money to build you back up, spent billions to defend you from the Soviet Expansion and aplogize profusely that we ever considered you people freinds or allies.

You probably think why should we? Well it’s called leadership, being bigger than the next country.

Firstoff, we have nothing to be sorry for except perhaps lending a helping hand to the world that continually bites it.

Secondly, you are woefully ignorant of the mindsets and values that populate the rest of the globe. If we were stupid enough to 'apologize' for anything, such a declaration would be viewed as weakness and open a Pandora's box of restitution and damage claims for gain or worse. America isn't going to apologize for existing or for how we got here.

If you don't like it you can pass a resolution or something.

Unless you do millions of people around the world will never trust America and there will ALWAYS be people willing to harm the country.

The world isn't going to trust us no matter what we do. The world has it's own ideologies, practices, morality, values and beliefs that run contrary to ours.

As such, they will always view us as a threat, it's called human nature - and we have 6,000 years of it to read upon for evidence of this.

The world is too big and there’s just too many people for even America to police it.

This is why we're spending billions on newer, better, more lethal and precise weaponry.

You can bomb and scare as much as you want, all it will achieve is an escallation of the problem.

No it won't. You CRUSH the enemy - just like the Nazis and Japs were crushed. No more escallation of the problem. You eliminate the problem. Annihilate the problem.

End of problem.

And that is the way the real world works.

Our enemies understand that, because that is the mindset in which they operate.

Originally posted by INVAR

You have no proof he was a genocidal monster. He never made it to trial according to your logic.

Plus he didn't 'attack the world'. He said he was INVITED into Poland, Chekoslovakia and then liberated France and Russia because they threatened him with force for refusing to leave.

I mean, who are you hate-filled nazi-phobes gonna believe? The Allies or Hitler? Judging by your standards Rowdy BB - the UN should definitely side with Adolf on that score.

Listen, your sarcasm in this is ridiculous. The world had no choice but to fight Nazi Germany as they were one by one invading nations. This comparison doesn't hold up with the Iraq argument.

Unless you are trying to say Saddam was the next Hitler??

Please you guys toss that one around so much you would think Hitler's were a dime a dozen.

We did not NEED any other reason to fight him since self defense is the best reason of all.

BINGO.

Except in an age of proliferated nuclear and biological weapons, troops aren't exactly going to be massing on your borders in order for you to shout "self defense!"

It will be a bright flash or a big poison cloud that kills millions in moments, but then you're too late to really defend against it aren't you?

So let me get this. Because weapons are more deadly today.. you are suggesting there should be an inverse relationship between how dangerous a weapon can be how much proof we need to claim someone has it and is gonna use it?

By that argument, the USA having the deadliest arsenal in the history of mankind, ought to be considered the biggest threat by the rest of the world? Actually many of us are half way to that assessment.

However you are factually wrong in your assessment that no evidence linking Hitler to killing any Jews exists.

According to you, he wasn't brought to trial, so we must presume him innocent until proven guilty. Since he wasn't able to defend himself in court, by your logic - we must assume him NOT GUILTY by our Western standards of law.

Actually no because his actions and orders were featured in the cases against his surviving lieutenants. Therefore if he had lived there is no doubt he would have recieved the death penalty.

Are you completely ignorant to history?

No, I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd.

At least you admit to being absurd.

After the war... when the concentration camps were liberated and investigated the Nuremberg trials convicted the surviving leaders of the Third Reich... no conviction really necessary for Adolf as he was dead.

Now extrapolate the same scenario to the Sadaam Brothers nitwit.

Same deal, case closed, we have the evidence and the trials are gonna begin soon for the surviving Baathists.

Do you? We'll see... just like the WMDs.

Remember ... WWII wasn't launched BECAUSE of crimes against humanity.... it was launched by the Germans to conquer the world. The concentration camps were not discovered until after the fall {or during the fall... depending on how you look at it}. The allies fought to defend themselves... period. They did not need the FACT of the concentration camps in order to justify that defense.

Iraq never set out on such a course. If they are found to be gulity of war crimes.. by all means punish them... but in no way relate that to the justification for war. These are seperate issues. The USA itself has committed war crimes BUT as the victors and sole superpower... who is gonna prosecute them? No one.

The USA is attempting to use a case of crimes against humanity NOW after the war to retro-justify it. This is not how any justice system should work.

Analogy:

A police officer pulls someone over who is of a different race than he is.

He has no cause to do this... but he violates the man's civil rights and winds up in a scuffle with him and uses his baton to beat him until he dies.

Afterwards, it turns out the man who was beaten to death also happens to have his girlfriends body in the trunk of his car!

Now.... does the fact of an unrelated crime... no matter how horrific... justify the murder {in a legal sense} of the man by the police officer?

I am curious INVAR... and ANYONE else how you would judge this scenario.

Listen, your sarcasm in this is ridiculous.

Wrong. It's perfectly applicable and exactly how your stance is viewed in America.

The world had no choice but to fight Nazi Germany

Right. AFTER everyone waited and appeased them time and again, even AFTER Hitler BLATANTLY violated the terms of the Versailles Treaty.

as they were one by one invading nations.

Because the Surrender Treaty and other demands of Europe were NOT enforced in a manner that would have prevented Hitler's build-up to begin with.

This comparison doesn't hold up with the Iraq argument.

Only in your twisted and warped minds.

The only reason you cannot fathom the similarities between Sadaam and Hitler is two-fold; 1) he wasn't perceived as a threat to Europe as even Milosevic was, and 2) - America stopped him before he could resemble that which took the world 6 years to defeat.

Unless you are trying to say Saddam was the next Hitler??

If America didn't stop him, YES. Sadaam's dream and vision was that of the Modern Nebuchadnezzar - he wanted to remake the Chaldean Empire. His first step was Kuwaait, then Saudi Arabi and ultimately all of the Mid-East. He often railed about how he would be the one to destroy Israel and wipe out every Jew in the M.E.

If you cannot discern the similarities - then you are brain-dead, or so hopelessly lost in your ideological hatred of America, that any sense of reason is lost.

Please you guys toss that one around so much you would think Hitler's were a dime a dozen.

Since the Cold War ended, the world has certainly exploded in their share of them. In fact, was it not many of you Leftists that compared Milosevic to Hitler as justification for the aggresive use of NATO to bomb his country into the stone age?

Yes it was.

Funny the selective application of standards you people use to measure isn't it?

Originally posted by INVAR

Wrong. It's perfectly applicable and exactly how your stance is viewed in America.

How my stance is viewed in America is as meaningless to me as the way in which yours is viewed in Canada is to you.

The world had no choice but to fight Nazi Germany

Right. AFTER everyone waited and appeased them time and again, even AFTER Hitler BLATANTLY violated the terms of the Versailles Treaty.

Hitler's appeasers {if you want to use that phrase} were more abundant in the USA than in Europe. The USA tried to maintain a diplomatic relationship with Nazi Germany LONG after the war began. So lets not throw stones over who should have recognized his villainy and when. Remember of the Allies the USA was the last to join.

as they were one by one invading nations.

Because the Surrender Treaty and other demands of Europe were NOT enforced in a manner that would have prevented Hitler's build-up to begin with.

Irregardless of why, he was invading and the world had to defend itself. Why did the world {USA included} wait so long before realizing Hitler's goal of world domination?

Read up on WWI... a generation naively {or optimistically, depending on your point of view} considered it the WAR TO END ALL WARS... remember that? Germany's rebuilding under Hitler was misjudged as a demonstration of Germany's desire to return to prosperity. Many world leaders were of the opinion that no one would be insane enough to want a world war again.... they sadly misjudged his insanity. Hitler was a truly unique madman. I doubt the world will see a villain of that calibre again... at least I hope not.

When Hitler's aggressions began... with his immediate neighbous... many wanted to believe his claims of defense were true.... why would anyone want another world war again right?

And so in one regard you are right... A GARGANTUAN MISTAKE was made in not seeing this monster for what he was.

But the mistake was shared by ALL the major powers... not just Europe!!!!

But, now, you seem to be advocating a path where every leader we are suspicious of we should ASSUME the worst { a Hitlerian agenda} and take them out before they could get strong enough to take us on.

Is this the way we were meant to live? Really, do you think the Big guy upstairs approves of a shoot first ask questions later approach to world security?

This comparison doesn't hold up with the Iraq argument.

Only in your twisted and warped minds.

The only reason you cannot fathom the similarities between Sadaam and Hitler is two-fold; 1) he wasn't perceived as a threat to Europe as even Milosevic was, and 2) - America stopped him before he could resemble that which took the world 6 years to defeat.

But once again, the classic moral dilemma, if you could destroy Hitler before he rose to power... would you? And if you did... wouldn't you be guilty of killing someone who was innocent and only potentially a monster?

Unless you are trying to say Saddam was the next Hitler??

If America didn't stop him, YES. Sadaam's dream and vision was that of the Modern Nebuchadnezzar - he wanted to remake the Chaldean Empire. His first step was Kuwaait, then Saudi Arabi and ultimately all of the Mid-East. He often railed about how he would be the one to destroy Israel and wipe out every Jew in the M.E.

You guys toss this one around... it disgusts me. Do you not see the dishonour you are heaping on the brave dead who fought the Nazis? These people gave there lives to stop one of the greatest evils in man's history... to compare petty thugs to him diminishes the severity of his crimes. You are teaching a generation that Hitler is not as bad as some make him out to be.

How you might ask? When people see the dubious nature of the claims against enemies {like Iraq and Afghanistan... and Kosovo before that} then they will start to wonder if Hitler's reputation is entirely factual or if it is exaggerated. Do you want to encourage this type of thinking? It is what I believe the result can be when we compare every adversary to the vilest that ever walked the earth. One can have an enemy.. and a justification for fighting them ...without conjuring images of swastikas.

Can you follow my reasoning on this?

Since the Cold War ended, the world has certainly exploded in their share of them. In fact, was it not many of you Leftists that compared Milosevic to Hitler as justification for the aggresive use of NATO to bomb his country into the stone age?

Yes it was.

NOPE.... NOT FROM ME ANYWAY!!!!!!!!!!

My opinion has always been that the UN should have stayed out of Kosovo as well.

A civil war waged with horrible consequences on both sides. But to attack what was left of the former Yugoslavia and cause so much damage.. did nothing to re-establish order.

I know many Serbs and Slavs.... they have differing views over who started what and where... but NONE of those I know wanted the destruction that came with getting Milosevic.
That area had been volatile since the break up of the Soviet Union... with many states wanting independence. The fighting was bloody... But answer me this.. if something happened to make some of your states try and secede from the Union wouldn't ther be blood and war? Oh, wait... that did happen and it wasn't pretty so why so quick to pass judgement?

Funny the selective application of standards you people use to measure isn't it?

Only when you wrongfully attribute opinions to me that aren't mine!!!!!

Do not assume my stand on an issue... ask me and I'll gladly share my thoughts.

Hitler's appeasers {if you want to use that phrase} were more abundant in the USA than in Europe.

Pacifists were indeed abundant among the American population that dreaded any kind of war in Europe that could drag them in as it did 25 years earlier.

A very similar mindset exists today, especially in the EU and UN.

It was as catastrophic a failure then as it could be now.

The USA tried to maintain a diplomatic relationship with Nazi Germany LONG after the war began.

As opposed to France having back door deals with Sadaam for oil contracts long after UN resolutions were passed?

he was invading and the world had to defend itself.

Today's proxy enemies of peace don't require invasion, just destruction.

Do we defend against it when we have enough potential evidence and suspicion based on statements and actions, or allow it to take place, compile the evidence and THEN try and defend against it by taking action??

Pretty silly since it will be too late for thousands if not millions, and your entire way of life is up for grabs due to panic and chaos in the wake of destruction.

Germany's rebuilding under Hitler was misjudged as a demonstration of Germany's desire to return to prosperity.

Likewise Iraq's small tokens of compliance were misjudged as a demonstration of wholehearted and unconditional compliance in a bid to return to the world community.

Many world leaders were of the opinion that no one would be insane enough to want a world war again.

Many UN leaders were (and still are) of the opinion that Sadaam was unjustly handled, and that he would never be insane enough to pull off another invasion of Kuwaait or threaten anyone with WMDs.

... they sadly misjudged his insanity.

Just as the UN sadly misjudged Sadaam's determination and motivation for non-compliance.

Hitler was a truly unique madman. I doubt the world will see a villain of that calibre again...

Oh yes you will, and WORSE. Take the level of hate that exists in the world today for Americans and especially Jews in Israel....

...Now imagine Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda acquiring nukes and nerve gas, already posessing the will to use them.

Conquest and genocide in the 21st century is not going to look like genocide and conquest from the 20th. It will be different and more insidious application of villany, via extortion and threats of instant annihilation.

But, now, you seem to be advocating a path where every leader we are suspicious of we should ASSUME the worst and take them out before they could get strong enough to take us on.

No. It's a path whereby if we DON'T assume the worst and take them out, they will simply take out a city of millions at first opportunity with nary a warning of when, or by whom.

Such is the reality of WMDs and nuclear proliferation in the hands of those who have no reservations of using them on you - because their love for their own lives and their children's lives is eclipsed by the hate they have for yours.

Is this the way we were meant to live? Really, do you think the Big guy upstairs approves of a shoot first ask questions later approach to world security?

Actually, scripture is repleat with God's directive towards dealing with enemies who so much as curse the nation; you wipe them out completely, taking no prisoners nor sparing even women or children. If your enemies do not share your values - they will not honor yours, in life or combat.

In God's kingdom itself, it's God's way or the highway. There is a zero-tolerance policy in accomodating evil - by either omission or comission.

if you could destroy Hitler before he rose to power... would you?

Without question. His breaking the Versailles treaty was enough Authority for Europe to blast him into irrelevant pettiness. His goading of thugs from Kristallnacht on was plenty of cause to waste him, even if he never fired a bullet or shattered a window.

Bin Laden didn't fly the planes into the towers, does that absolve him of complicity?

And if you did... wouldn't you be guilty of killing someone who was innocent and only potentially a monster?

No one instantly becomes a monster like Hitler. There are enough stepping stones of murder, treachery and visions of conquest to identify such a madman. We have history and man's nature as a roadmap of what to watch for. Sadaam and Hitler both fit that profile.

You guys toss this one around... it disgusts me. Do you not see the dishonour you are heaping on the brave dead who fought the Nazis?

No, we are HONORING them to ensure their sacrfice to defeat such monsters was not in vain by allowing the rise of a smilar or even greater monster.

These people gave there lives to stop one of the greatest evils in man's history...

In the hopes their children and grandchildren would never have to suffer under such a maniac or ever have to fight his like again.

But we are warned that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

How quickly we forget.

to compare petty thugs to him diminishes the severity of his crimes.

HORSEPUCKEY! Even Hitler began as a petty thug. Petty thugs that are protected, followed, admired and appeased, grow into genocidal madmen with nations underfoot.

You are teaching a generation that Hitler is not as bad as some make him out to be.

Ridiculous. We're illustrating the lesson that if we're not vigilant and notice the signs - we will be faced with another or worse horror than the Third Reich.


Well it's late, and the rest of your post I will have to leave for later.

Invar, you're blind. This is exactly the mentality that keeps wars a reality.

If such were true, we would have never won peace by crushing the nazis. Peace is won on the other side of war when the enemy is crushed and defeated.

Wars are a reality due to Human nature's lusts, jealousy, resentment, anger, envy, fear and malice. It is not a result of crushing and killing those who are your enemies.

The repetitious mindset that keeps thinking over and over it's righteous, and eliminating the problem.

Was defeating the nazis not righteous? Do you prescribe that in the vestige of peace that we should simply all roll over when threatened and be carpets for the boots of a tyrant's stormtroopers?

Such a mindset is insanity in the real world.

Why? Because you keep playing the game! People with your mindset simply will not understand that the only way to win it not to play.

How juvenile. How ignorant. What wishful thinking.

Not standing up to threats and aggression invites annihilation. Refusing to stand and fight for what is right when the enemy comes to deprive you of life and liberty is weakness to be exploited.

Evil grows and consumes the world when good men do nothing. And here you advocate exactly that.

War is not some 'game' you can simply choose not to play when you are challenged. If so, you capitulate to destruction and slavery.

You encapsulate one of the major reasons why America LEADS the world, and the rest are relegated to follow or complain about us.

I know...it's a far out concept...

A concept the world does not recognize nor adhere to. It would just as quick devour those such as yourself and spit out your bones without any remorse.

As long as you keep fighting, you will always have enemys. Period.

How absurd. Destroy your enemies and there will be fewer to deal with, and the remaining will respect you out of fear.

There will always be a new contender, a former observer outside the ring, that wants to take a crack at the World Heavy Champion.

Such is the way of the world. Human nature again. Defeat enough challengers and eventually out of respect the others will refrain from testing you, until such time as you grow fat, lazy and weak.

And while many champions hold their title for extended periods of time, sooner or later, someone will fell them. Why?

Depends on the nation or empire. Sometimes the oppressed rise up and throw off the chains of tyranny to establish a new champion. Sometimes the former champion becomes so arrogant and filled with his own prowess that he no longer sees a need to remain vigilant, or remember how he got to the top spot.

Not playing that 'game' as you call it simply makes it easier for those who believe the stong should rule the weak, the deviant should abuse the innocent alot easier.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

When they forget their foundation that got them to the top, and grow lazy and content, and refuse to remain vigilant and in-shape, they will indeed fall.

But refusing to fight and stand one's ground is just asking to be pummeled in this world.

No...sorry, not "end of problem". America's World Heavy Weight ego, and standing in the war ring was the primary motivation for the cheap and sleazy attack on the WTC...because we keep bouncing around INSIDE THE RING*

Your analogy here is complete and utter hogwash. You think for one second that a 'champion' is going to walk on eggshells with any potential contenders that one day may want a shot at him so as to avoid a possible conflict with them later????

Sorry, that's not a champion or leader, that's an imbecile content to work the lavatory of a Champion.

It's just so sad that you can't see that you're perpetuating the problem...exactly opposite of what you've conned yourself into believing...that you're eliminating the problem.

Your fantasy is absurd. If your enemy is dead, defeated and eliminated, he no longer poses you a threat, PERIOD - end of sentence. I don't care how many other 'hopefuls' may exist out there. Once they see how we absolutely wasted the previous challenger, they will challenge us with great trepidation, if they challenge us at all.

just look at history...it's all right there...showing itself for all to see, and many to ignore. It's amazingly embarrassing that most are so incapable to seeing how plainly illustrated in the experience of life that hate begets hate, violence breeds violence, and peace promotes peace.

Tell that to the Ghandi family. In a world of lions, dressing up as a lamb is not only foolish, it's ridiculous.

If all humanity had the same mindset, your utopian theory might have merit. But humanity does NOT have the same mindset, nor principles, nor values that are shared with all. Not even the sanctity of life. So spare me the "Recipe To Becomming A Foot Carpet For The World" poem of 'violence begets violence crap.

Tell you what Sherlock, you tie your hands behind your back, and I'll kick you in the 'nads and pop you right in the kisser with a bat, and let's see whether or not you resort to begetting more violence by defending yourself.


Humans are far and away the most foolish species on earth.

I'd like to see a dolphin or monkey build a condo or write a software program.

See yourself as having enemies, and you will indeed conclude that they need to be destroyed. The whole deal requires that one believes that there is truly such a thing as enemies.

How outrageously absurd!

You must think that 9/11 was a mirage or that theives and rapists are simply a figment of a victim's imagination.

Lay off the bong man, it's affecting your ability to make any sense.

Whoa, "the real world"...what a concept. I guess the real world contains a lot of denial of reality too.

You should know. Read your sentence above. "enemies only exist if you believe there are enemies".

Hitler would have LOVED to have had the world made up of nations like you.

You guys keep fighting...and you'll always create new enemies.

Keep pretending there's no such thing as criminal madmen, and you'll end up buried by them.

Originally posted by INVAR

just look at history...it's all right there...showing itself for all to see, and many to ignore. It's amazingly embarrassing that most are so incapable to seeing how plainly illustrated in the experience of life that hate begets hate, violence breeds violence, and peace promotes peace.

Tell that to the Ghandi family. In a world of lions, dressing up as a lamb is not only foolish, it's ridiculous.

Hey, INVAR, I know this was directed at Tdog... but could you elaborate a bit?

I am by no means a pacifist. But I always thought that Ghandi was their hero... an example of pacifism stopping an army.

I admire pacifists.... I really do. But when push comes to shove I don't have it in me to turn the other cheek. I respond to violence with violence..... at times this has helped... at times it has made a situation worse.

What I am curious about though is what you mean by "look at the Ghandi Family"?

What ultimately happened to Mr. Ghandi Rowdy?

When faced with people who do not share a similar set of values and code of ethics that can settle differences via non-violent means, remaining a pacifist in the shadow of the bloodthirsty is simply suicide.

Lions devour - that is their nature. Walking as a lamb amidst them thinking that your lack of claws and fangs will not provoke them to attack you is ludicrous - lions and wolves preferably attack the weak and stray first - yet despite this fact, tdog expects us act as lambs amidst the lions and to ignore their nature.

Ok, eventually he was assasinated. But ... despite the fact that pacifism may not be for you or me.. there is no denying the success he had with it for years and YEARS in many conflicts.

Rowdy - for crying out loud - LOOK who he was in conflict with!!!! THE BRITS! A people who have a Western-Judeo/Christian ethic and practice.

Brits weren't about to annihilate a bunch of people foamenting revolution that simply starved themselves in front of the press as opposed to picking up guns.

The Brits have a concience. They also have a common morality and ethic that couldn't defer to barbarism by simply killing an unarmed and non-threatening movement.

Had India been ruled by Stalin, Ghandi's little stunts would have been crushed by tanks. Had it been the Taliban, Ghandi would have been shot and his followers killed on soccer fields.

Sadaam's ethics and code were non-existant. Passivity would be seen as weakness. Inaction as opportunity.

Would this work on a larger model?... I don't know... I have my doubts...

When you are dealing with criminal cutthroats who would be pleased to see your guts spilled out in front of them, appealing to them out of reason while unarmed is the most suicidal and stupid thing to do.

Invar get your facts straight on the hitler thing you keep bringing up.
yes he did indeed break the treaty of versailles but have you actually read the thing there were those in europe who after the dust of ww1 had settled realised that the treaty was harsh and even today is classed as the harshest peace treaty ever, many believed hitler was only reclaiming land that should never have been taken and to do that you need an army plus when you see the germans marching in to austria and a vast majority are welcoming them its a bit hard to argue against it it was when he invaded poland and asked for help that we went to action.
secondly after ww1 most armys of thw world were to financially hampred to fight or had to rebuild thier armed forces before any kind of counter offensive could have been launched and as for us holding back your hardly one to talk.
As to the fact that you paid to rebuild France etc you certainly did but Germanywas also paying the reperations and it was an American plan tha launched Germany in to financial crisis you seem to omit that from you facts remeber was it the Dawes or Kellog plan I'll have to check on that even thogh I'm sure it was Dawes.

Lodgebo,
'
Did Germany SIGN the treaty or didn't they?

They were BOUND by it's terms demanded by the ALLIES in an attempt to PREVENT another Great War.

When you crush and defeat an enemy willing to surrender to terms, then the terms need to be abided, or the resumption of hostilities to enforce such terms is the only way to ensure your enemy doesn't take revenge and repeat the very things you want to avoid being repeated.

The idea that a surrender treaty is too 'harsh' is ludicrous if you are trying to compare that to the 1991 Cease-Fire with Iraq.

If Hitler survived and agreed to surrender - and the treaty demanded he disarm ALL of his weapons and open his nation for inspections to ensure they are, are you gonna tell me that you would think such a treaty harsh??

Would you truly provide a known madman like Hitler the opportunity to reconstitute his military and weapons programs by playing games like the UN played with Sadaam???

No, you would blast him to dust, remove his regime and ensure Germany would not be in a position to threaten you again.

Invar they certainly did sign so you no a little something about the war they were bound but do you know pushed through some of the harshest terms? your buddys the French because they were scared of what Germany cou; do to them and wanted them week after hundreds of years of battles so it wasnt unanimous on all parts.
hypothetical question suppose the US go to war and lose and the winning group decide that as part of the treaty the US will lose the southern states and they will be renamed etc then ten years on a US presiden decides that he is going to reclaim them would you backs actions and why?

okay lets look at harsh here are some of the clauses germany is to have no air force and an army of only 10,000 with only ten officers, germany will lose most of her land and they will be renamed i.e. Poland and I thinbk czecslovakia,so poland may support herself trade wise germanywill lose more land to create a trade route known as the polish corridor, germany accepts all responsibility for the war and all damage and death as a result of war ( judged as one of the unfairest clauses), Germany will pay all costs (reparations) for the rebuilding of countrys destroyed due to the war, Germany will lose themining and strategic piecies of land Alsace and Lorrainne. Like I said thats only some of it.

coimpare the 1991 treaty wit just tjose clauses which one is more harsh.

We let him rebuild the military due to thefactors that one we couldnt afford to stop him and two the army that was left was to small in relation to the size of germany plus the US could have stepped iun why didnt they, after all they eventuall got involved in ww1 and they are on the treaty.
if you really want to know how germany felt about the treaty well even today there are som who cant forgive the "NMovember criminals"

Lodgebo -

To your hypothetical;

To the Victors go the spoils.

As to Iraq and the war on Islamic terror;

In an age of nuclear and chemical and biological weapons proliferation and rogue states and regimes seeking them to wage revenge, jihad or blackmail - there is the quick and the decisive or the dead and the dying.

Today is no longer about territories and land grabs (except maybe in the case of Taiwaan and the Koreas) - today is about inflicting mass death and chaos and the role of who leads the world and by what standards.

Thank God there aren't more people you, Invar. You are filled with hate and fear. In fact, the only valid statement you've made is: Wars are a reality due to Human nature's lusts, jealousy, resentment, anger, envy, fear and malice. It is not a result of crushing and killing those who are your enemies. And you are the perfect example. It occurred to me that you mentality is quite similar to Hitler’s. The only component missing is the racism. Everything else in your mentality is dead on.

But really, let me make a couple of things perfectly clear. Firstly, I should say that at one point or another, I've thought similarly to you. I was once filled with the mental conditioning like yours...solely the product of what was taught by others with the same beliefs. I don't think we have any idea the great extent at how greatly our mentalities are the products and hand-me-downs of those before us. As we speak about human nature, let's look at the differences in human nature. Let's look at the differences in the nature of various cultures. It becomes easy to see that "human nature" isn't really an accurate term...it's far too broad and encompasses all humans, thereby defining nothing. But when we look at cultures and the mentality of the people within them, we see a broad range...clearly indicating that a person's nature is directly molded by the culture he is raised in.

This becomes the fundamental difference in our "debate", to use the term very loosely. In between the stones throwing, I suppose there is some. My attempt is to make it a bit more mature. But back to the difference in our points. Invar is really addressing an entirely different issue than I am. He is stating that the only way to combat violence or attacks is with more of the same. This, far and away the most reflexive and response humans, and many other species have. While other species effectively stay alive not by fighting, but by staying safely away from predators, running, or simply having defense mechanisms that protect themselves with "annihilating" (a term your wearing out quickly, Invar), their adversary. So we can see there are many ways animals stay alive without killing.

And such is the same with different countries. Many are the countries that stay wealthy, peaceful*, and free without constantly engaging in war. That's what I'm referring to when I speak of history being so plain to see. If our goal is to try and seek the truth about life, we see that there are always many ways to accomplish a goal. On subjects like this, our culture will massively influence our whole hearted opinions and solutions to common problems. We become accustomed to reacting to events and circumstances in our lives with a pre-wired mentality, one wired so deeply, it feels perfectly and absolutely natural . And whatever feels natural to a person, automatically feels right . This is an all important point, that I'd like to emphasize.

* The real kind, not the oxy-moron type where one says that "war leads to peace".

So the concept of righteousness is perfectly subjective. There were millions of perfectly intelligent German's that were some how mentally wired into believing that Hitler's goals were appropriate. Yes, scary to think. But I encourage people to research Hitler's speeches to his people. They were exceedingly motivating. The Germans were humiliated by their loss of WWI. Hitler came along and boosted their pride and made them hopeful, and prideful once again. So again, here is another example of a the extraordinary impact that a culture's mentality has.

So if we keep thinking the way we (a culture) has been, then nothing will change. What some like Invar fail to realize, is the all important influence one culture has on another. If we engage in war, we promote war. Another important point: Don't for a second think that I'm not in favor of self-defense. I will have defended myself with physical force if when I've needed to to defend myself. I own a gun and will use it to protect my life. But this is where some of us and gone off the deep end and taken this so called "right to defend ourselves" way too far. The Iraq war was nowhere near a defensive move. It was entirely offensive. Now I can't wait to start debating this...some, I'm sure will actually try to claim that the U.S. military action in Iraq was a defensive action. Preposterous. People like Invar, who are so filled to the brim with fear and aggression, believing that one must be ready for the big attack, are more accurately overwhelmed with paranoia, and the brainwashing that the military recruitment program instills. Like in a court of law, the prosecutor is always as pessimistic as possible, striving to condemn and punish the defendant to the extreme…always presuming them guilty. The military needs their soldiers to be the exact same way in order for them to be effective soldiers. The last thing they need is someone contemplating the righteousness factor when engaging in combat. So they train and teach them all about the enemy and the extent of their evil. And they also train them to be as aggressive as possible. With the exception of the draft, young** people who voluntarily enlist are perfect for the job…they’ll take them. They’re obviously predisposed to a military mentality, have an aggressive nature. You won’t find too many “wimps” enlisting in the Marines. These are people who are seeking “action”.

**It’s no surprise that the military takes recruits as young as they can conceivably justify. They know that the mental condition is a critical and primary component of making an effective soldier. And the younger, the more moldable they are. They’ve had less conditioning, and are far more naive than a wiser, more intelligent 25 or 30 year old. The mental conditioning is critical, and more important than the wisdom that only comes with age.

So Invar’s mentality isn’t surprising. He’s a product of the military system. Statistically, there’s a high probability that he’s come from a family of military enlisted. The influence there is plain. It’s just like racism. It’s a learned belief, typically from one’s family or friends. Do the research and you’ll see that bigots are sons and daughters of bigots.

So we become wired to reflexively respond to our lives based on mental wiring reactions instilled in us many years ago. So much that we do not question whether it is right or wrong. If a lot of people are doing it, it must be right, right? Hey millions of people were involved in the slaughter of Jews. Don’t just blame Hitler. He would have never come to power if his propositions weren’t shared, obviously. But there does seem to be a survival instinct universal to a living being’s nature. That is to emulate that of everyone else. It makes perfect sense. As a prime component of “survival of the fittest”, our nature is to do the same thing that all those around us who are obviously alive. Maybe the term should more accurately be called, “survival of the most popular”. We have a great inclination to think and behave like everybody else…to stay alive. So it comes down to the semantics of what we define “right” as. Hey, if it keeps us alive, it must be right. Or, let’s be as civilized, mature, and wise as possible for the good of everyone…not just ourselves. One is all about self-preservation, with an emphasis on self. The other, contains a higher understanding of what it is to be human,, the influences, the long term consequences of our behavior, and how what we think right is, is entirely optional and varies tremendously. It expands “self” not just to one’s country, but to all of the human race. Further, it understands that whatever we think, we promote. Whatever we do, we promote. Whatever we do, we encourage.

The more the individual thinks a certain way, the more others around him will think the same way. Ghandi openly expressed his higher understanding to resolving problems, and won the support of hundreds of thousands. Immeasurably more important was the result. He effectively save thousands of lives based on what he contained in his head. He expressed it, it spread, and the results were dumbfounding. This clearly tells us how incredibly powerful the human mind is. Whatever we think has tremendous power. Whatever we believe has tremendous power. Let us be very cautious as to we allow ourselves to believe.

To make a statement like “look what became of Ghandi” is pretty…self incriminating, to be nice. It looks to be the expression of the epitome of a self-centered person. Ghandi proved an invaluable point and saved thousands of lives. Like me and many others, I’m sure he wouldn’t have flinched if he knew it would cost him his own life to make that point. He was wise enough to expect it would.

Moreover, there are many other countries that show to be perfect examples of peaceful, neutral countries. Those who know how to stay out of the ring. Switzerland, Canada, Spain, Brazil, Portugal, and many more. Basically all the countries that we don’t hear about “making the news”. Let the point be made clear that this is not to say that these countries have no intact military regime. Every Swiss male serves his country, is issued a rifle which he is to keep for life. They are obviously prepared to defend themselves if an offending nation attacks. Another critical point to be made. Why is it that no-one attacks Switzerland, or Canada, or many of these other non-war engaging countries? They’ve got plenty of wealth and a beautiful country. Is it not that they simply know what it means to achieve true peace? Of course. Now I can’t wait to get some twisted far-out explanation of the real reason that Invar will concoct. No one attacks Switzerland, because they are an example of a nearly purely peaceful people. And because humans have a big problem with their conscience when it comes to attacking anything they perceive as pure, or innocent, they simply have no interest. It’s the same as attacking a baby or a puppy. These two are commonly known as the pure and innocent…those who’ve never harmed anyone. We don’t feel too bad when we kill something we think is “bad” or guilty of something. We fail to realize is that the things we hate, are the things we possess within ourselves. Humans are simply fantastic hypocrites. We are always putting others down for doing the same things that we do.

And such is the case with Iraq. We attacked them because we “thought” (we basically we just betting they did) that they had WMD. Isn’t it interesting that we have WMD. Our statement promotes that idea that WMD are bad, especially if they are going to be used. Well guess what. The U.S. is the only country to have used WMD. And in unimaginably inappropriate response to an attack from Japan, we bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima, killing something like (someone help me here), 200,000 innocent people in two moments? Oops. Maybe we reacted a little harshly. Though it’s different in many aspects, is it so far away from the insanity of the Nazi regime? Not really. It has the same prime component: Falsely determining innocent people to be worthy of being killed…solely based on where they live. While the people responsible for making the final decision to drop the bombs are now dead, still they were the leaders of our country. These are the ones we elected because we believed in their expressions of the proper way to run a country. We heard their banter, and their views on a military defense, and we promoted it by electing them. And because of our unthinkable act of dropping those bombs, we have proven that we are not worthy of possessing WMD. And yet, we’ve got more than any other country.

If our leaders had any intelligence at all, they would have realized that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. Hussain has been threatening the U.S. for years without doing anything. The obvious conclusion is that he is all talk. We knew that. He may be insane, but he’s not stupid. He only attacked other countries he had confidence of conquering, who, Iran, Saudi? Anyway, the small guys. His yammerings about conquering America are very typical of any leader trying to retain an “almighty” reputation. We knew he was never a real threat. But maybe that’s not true. People like Bush and other U.S. military leaders and advisors and paranoid, right? Paranoia is a form of delusion…not exactly a promoter of rational thinking.

We the U.S. are great hypocrites. We are attacking people for having less of the same kind of evil we have. We took a gamble, made excuses for an offensive move, and lost the bet. And now we’ve become more like those we hate.

Let us not think for a minute that 9/11 was fueled by a group that is simply jealous of the big guy. Why is it we are so utterly incapable of putting ourselves in other peoples shoes? We need to so desperately. We must understand that as long as we continue with our military mentality, and keep attacking countries like Iraq under those circumstances, that others will follow our example and retaliate against us. I’d bet a lot that there is a terrorist group planning a bigger and better attack on the U.S. as I write, fueled specifically by the U.S. attack on Iraq. And it will be more clever and underhanded and very possibly more devastating than 9/11. You think we’re promoting peace by attacking Iraq? We are further tarnishing the world’s view of American’s, promoting the same kind of behavior, and setting ourselves up for the same kind of action against us.

America indeed is the world superpower. With that, also comes with it the greatest power to set the example of how to be. We could be showing the rest of the world that peace without exception is the way to live. And when people see such a huge entity is setting an example of how to be cool when faced with an aggressor, it will eventually set the standard. Mental conditionings and changes in cultural values and paradigms don’t always happen overnight. Sometimes these take the requirement for people to stick to ideals, no matter what. Eventually, the aggressor, who is more bent on a fight than anything else, will simply fade away. Just like the Brits did. After they realized that India would have nothing to do with a war, they lost interest and receded. Such is not always the case, and so I do not subscribe to a fully pacifist stance. Nevertheless, Ghandi led India through an unprecedented course of action in response to the Brits. He had a vision of the truth, and he proved it.

Continued...

But by being an example, we promote. And that doesn’t mean that if we make an all life changing decision to love your enemy, avoid violence at any cost, that the rest of the world will instantly follow the same. There maybe those who will take advantage of it in the beginning. But as time goes on, and people settle in to the higher way, and realize that we are all on the same team, then things will change. But as I said before, nothing changes, if nothing changes.

At this point, it’s still a slow train a comin’. If we look at history, it appears that slowly…very slowly humans are realizing that war is not the answer. Regimes like Hussain’s are becoming more and more rare. If WWIII doesn’t wipe us all out, I believe we will evolve into a race that knows that war is never the answer, and war will become obsolete. It’s just a matter of how quickly we choose to evolve.

A country can be seen as an individual. Again, I confess I’ve had all the same thoughts, and lived once with the predisposition to “aggressively defend” myself against any foe. And it’s no coincidence that I found myself in far more conflict than I do now. I’ve learned that I myself play a great role in whether violence develops in the first place. And no, I have not been taken advantage of in any way, am not dead, or in jail. I’ve got a lot of friends that I wouldn’t necessarily were trouble makers, but somehow managed to always get into fights. They were quick to antagonize and escalate a conflict with the other person, who had the same mindset as he, and sure enough, they fought. I’ve been there too. And after being fortunate enough to see the bigger picture as to the role I play, and the power of outcome that I have, I’ve been amazed at what I’ve realized. I’ve proven that a potential threat can be rapidly diminished by my humility. If I truly express the intention of resolving the matter peacefully, they either pick up the same idea, or simply lose interest. Some are just looking for a fight, and will find any excuse for one, and when they find that the other guy isn’t biting, he moves on. This principle isn’t limited to war, but to almost every corner of human behavior. Whatever we feed, gets bigger. If we feed the goal of peace, it’s likelihood gets greater. And if we abide the Golden Rule, put ourselves in other’s shoes, and respect them, even when our forefathers hand-me-down mentality tells us that respect is conditional, then we find the world closer to the ideal we envision.

Let’s try to see the truth about life. See how we’re all in the same boat (this planet), and that even when one is being unreasonable, it doesn’t mean we ought to toss him overboard. I encourage people to see the movie, Thirteen Days. This is an excellent example of a narrowly avoided nuclear war. And a war that if realized, would have been spawn only by the fear of a few men. Our minds are so powerful, and so is the fear. The fear in the mind of one man can spread like a disease and cause the death of thousands or millions. That event in history could have taken a much different course. If Kennedy wasn’t president, or if he had chosen to succumb to his military advisors recommendations, millions may have been killed. If Invar were president, millions might have been killed. But Kennedy played it cool, he saw the big picture, and a needless catastrophe was avoided. And a movie was made. A depiction of history that shows us so much about human nature, choices, and the power of the human mind. Let’s not ignore this stuff!

Thank God there aren't more people you, Invar. You are filled with hate and fear.

I take that oft-made comment as a compliment and a badge of honor coming from the likes of such a delusional mind that willfully ignores history, human nature and the facts of life that govern this world.

I was once filled with the mental conditioning like yours...solely the product of what was taught by others with the same beliefs.

Mine was developed via study, comparison, debate and personally experiencing the depraved sh*tholes that populate the planet while witnessing some of the brutality and relics of horror men seeking power unleash on their own people as well as their adversaries.

So you can spare me the psychology - someone else already pretended to know what he was talking about in that Dept.

My attempt is to make it a bit more mature.

You might try to refrain from passing off Xanadu as reality...if we would only let it.

He is stating that the only way to combat violence or attacks is with more of the same. This, far and away the most reflexive and response humans, and many other species have. While other species effectively stay alive not by fighting...

Your absurd attempt to draw comparisons between the animal kingdom and the conduct, cultures and nature of men as some kind of blueprint for our behavior is of such ridiculousness - I can't stop laughing.

Many are the countries that stay wealthy, peaceful*, and free without constantly engaging in war.

NAME THEM, and I will utilize history to illustrate how bogus your claim is in each instance. Not emotion, not feelings, but RAW, COLD-HARD FACTS.

* The real kind, not the oxy-moron type where one says that "war leads to peace".

Really? So in retrospect of the Third Reich marching across Europe - you presume to tell us that defeating them VIA WARFARE didn't achieve the peace and the prosperity that came to the West as a Result???

You're a frigging maroon, locked in some kind of college-theory-based fantasy.

So the concept of righteousness is perfectly subjective.

It's why the world has thousands upon thousands of differing religious beliefs and sects. Some of those 'subjectives' assume that strapping themselves and their children with bombs and blowing up as many of us as possible is holy work.

The REALITY is that in dealing with such an unwavering mindset as that, in order to survive and prevent such harm to ourselves, requires FORCE to eliminate that threat.

What some like Invar fail to realize, is the all important influence one culture has on another.

Hardly. The last 50 years is a testament to the kind of influence American culture has blessed the world with in terms of living standards, technology and aspirations.

If we engage in war, we promote war.

What utter, complete and unmitigated horsesh*t of gargantuan proportions.

There is a time for war. Scripture itself confirms this. Engaging in war in just cause and defense drives away the enemy of peace, and engenders respect and fear. THAT is what 6,000 years of recorded human history has proven time and again. The overwhelming might of force in defense and promotion of liberty has not only established peace, but has prospered it and kept the desires of oppressors at bay.

The Iraq war was nowhere near a defensive move.

More unmitigated bullsh*t and neither of us are EVER going to come to agree on this issue, so I'm not even going to bother starting to debate it again.

SADAAM DECLARED JIHAD ON AMERICA IN DECEMBER 1998.

'Nuff said - I don't give a sh*t what his stated so-called reasons were.

If you had stopped a neighborhood bully from raping your next door neighbor, and he promised to kill you and your children for interfering - do you wait until you have enough hard evidence to convince the reluctant cops to arrest him or do you risk waiting until he sneaks in your house - wasting you all in a moment when you least expect it? Mind you, that the moment he gets in your house he blows it to bits, and the chances of your sidearm taking him out after he's in is slim, if you hear him at all.

The last thing they need is someone contemplating the righteousness factor when engaging in combat.

But you admitted above that 'righteousness' was subjective. One man's bane is another man's angel.

As that is an undeniable fact, what does the world respond to? Appeals to angels or bane's? No. It responds to brute force and strength in defeating one or the other.

So Invar’s mentality isn’t surprising. He’s a product of the military system.

One that allowed me to see and experience the real world.

I'm going to announce that your mentality isn't surprising either. You're a product of the Elitist academia system - where theory and the application of utopianism is practiced as a religion.

It’s just like racism. It’s a learned belief, typically from one’s family or friends. Do the research and you’ll see that bigots are sons and daughters of bigots.

Again the Elitist theorizes to the set application of ideology while willfully ignoring that often learned beliefs come from DIRECT EXPERIENCE and research and not tradition as assumed.

Or, let’s be as civilized, mature, and wise as possible for the good of everyone…not just ourselves.

Not everyone shares your views of what constitutes civillized, mature or wise.

One is all about self-preservation, with an emphasis on self.

Welcome to the way most of the world thinks and operates.

The other, contains a higher understanding of what it is to be human,,

If history is a guide, then we have 6,000 years that prove withou