General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am against any US military intervention in Syria (and Iran)
Just throwing that out.
No more world policeman.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I think even Lincoln should have allowed the South to become another country. We would all be better off today if that had happened.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Seriously?
How about, do you think everyone would be better off if the Allies hadn't opposed the Nazis?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Slavery would have been abolished in other ways and Hitler would have never happened if WWI hadn't happened. He was a direct product of WWI.
There was a very active underground railroad where slaves went to the northern states to gain their freedom. Surely you've hear of it. Other forms of pressure could easily have been used. Sanctions and refusal to do business with slave owners could have been used.
War is not necessary if you want to implement change. Ask Gandhi or Mandela or MLK Jr. how to bring major change.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)And ridiculously, naively optimistic. It's like saying that there would be no war if it weren't for other wars, going back infinitely to a chicken and the egg thing. Not to mention, fuck anyone who is in need of freedom until then, like the three million black people in the Confederacy, whom the underground railroad could never have hoped to save more than a tiny fraction of. Look at attitudes in the south today toward blacks, and tell me that there REALLY would have been some kind of clean and easy abolition of slavery if we'd just said "Okay, go ahead and keep owning human beings as property, torturing them, and murdering them. It's cool."
You also don't know the history of what you're saying: Mandela was the co-founder and leader of the armed insurrection wing of the ANC, and he actively directed sabotage and bombing campaigns as well as preparation for guerrilla warfare. He was also on the record as saying that his own years of effort and increasing repression had convinced him that non-violent protest had not and could not achieve progress against apartheid.
Also, Ghandi openly said this in 1946: "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butchers knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."
So Ghandi's strategy of "pacifism at all costs" basically said that if someone wanted to come into your home, take your possessions, rape your children, and then torture you to death, you should let them do it. And I'm not exaggerating--he said that too, in 1940 about the Nazis. "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."
So pardon me if I find it wrongheaded to say that we should simply surrender the world to the worst human beings we can find.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)there's a reason people come to understand pacifism. Wars create more wars.
Think about what would happen if countries actually worked just as hard to create peaceful solutions instead of going to war.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
malaise
(268,966 posts)Rec
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)That's okay, if not sending our troops into danger in countries that don't threaten America is isolationist, then I am one, too.
David__77
(23,372 posts)And not because I'm a pacifist, because I am not. There is just war and unjust war. Any US war against Syria or Iran would be profoundly immoral and unjust.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I am already against the next war. I will not support any more military action without a hell of a good reason, i.e. another country directly attacks the United States or a US military base. Otherwise, its really none of our business quite frankly and we have zero moral authority to intervene.
Neue Regel
(221 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and ramping up once again.
Gotta protect the MIC. I am heartened to see so many being proactive about saying NO. This is not the only discussion board where I am seeing this sentiment already.
Play the same game long enough, and people catch on eventually...