"All wars are follies, very expensive and

[rateyes]

very mischievous ones. In my opinion, there never was a good war or a bad peace. When will mankind be convinced and agree to settle their difficulties by arbitration?"

~Benjamin Franklin

[midnight]

1. In the spirit of peace.... Bring them home....

[rateyes]

3. Or, in the spirit of sanity

or just because no army can win a war against a strategy of war. War on terror? What a load of shit.

It's "War on People"---mothers, fathers, children, et al.

[Laelth]

13. k&r for sanity. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

41. Well, if that were true...

we'd be conducting this war very differently.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

39. "Peace", like war, has its costs.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

40. Shouldn't peace be in quotations? After all, us leaving will hardly create peace in Afghanistan

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. When "mankind" is a monolithic entity, which it isn't.

Ergo, there is war.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. So you would have made an early peace with...

The Mongols? They killed everybody in their path. At one point Ghengis Khan consider killing all of China, so horses could graze.

Hitler?

Stalin?

Pol-Pot?

Sometimes, history serves up a genuine villian who has to be stopped by war.

However, that does not justify all, or even most wars.

[doc03]

5. You know if we just sent Hitler a

box of chocolates he would have left everyone alone.

[rateyes]

8. Thanks for that comment. I forgot that the Afghanis are Nazis.

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

43. I don't think that's what the poster was trying to say.

The poster was merely pointing out the flaw in this "we can make peace with everyone every time!" logic.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Exactly. N/T

[eridani]

22. If the US elite hadn't invested in him, he might not have been a problem n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

44. Unlikely. Any outside investment was hardly instrumental in his rise to power.

[anonymous171]

47. US elite also bankrolled the Soviets. nt

[rateyes]

6. Yep....

Humans are sick creatures.

[Greyhound]

50. Don't know about Ghengis Khan, but all of the others were created by wars. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

55. But once they are on the scene, you have to deal with them as they are.

If a person violently breaks into my home, I have to deal with the situation as it is. I won't have the luxury of trying to figure out who to blame for him being the type of person that he is. It is the same with nations. If a dictator goes on a rampage and starts agressive wars, then it is too late to play the blame game. You have to deal with the dictator as he is. Once that is done, you can point fingers at leisure.

[rug]

51. We need an equivalent to Godwin for people who mention Genghis Khan.

[Cant trust em]

7. Even the revolutionary war?

Or should we have just let the British impose taxes on us without recourse?

[rateyes]

9. Just quoting Franklin.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. In this case Franklin was wrong, and you are wrong for agreeing with him. N/T

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

24. Franklin is wrong?

Not sure, more likely the rest of us don't have the balls to stand up and declare "HELL NO, WE WON'T GO"
All of us are complicit in this kind of thing (war). All of us...........

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Those who refuse to bear the sword can still die upon a sword.

Just because you are singing Kumbaya doesn't meant the other side will listen.

[treestar]

35. Don't you hate it when someone on the left goes so far into extremism

That we have to resort to right wing argument? I've had to deal with the Kumbaya argument in opposing Iraq (they want to kill us, doncha you?).

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

45. Hey, just because some Right Wingers use the argument

doesn't mean the argument is invalid.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

38. The other side

is composed of people just like us.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. When the "other side" is trying to kill all of "us", then they are no longer...

just like us.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

52. Tell me again

who is on the other side?

[GreenStormCloud]

53. Depends upon a few factors.

I do NOT defend all wars. I will readily accept that most are unnecessary. World War I would be a prime example of a useless war. At the same time, I will insist that some wars must be fought. WWII is a prime example of one.

If you had been a Jew, or a Russian, in Europe during WWII, the Germans would have definately been "the other". Americans joined with many other nations to fight against and eleminate Nazism. During WWII, the German and Japanese military would have been "other".

If I am ever attacked by a violent felon, that goblin will be "the other", until the attack ceases.

Sometimes, self-defense has to violent, both for nations and for individuals.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

56. We are not talking about the same thing.

When I say we are all the same,I mean the citizens of Germany or Japan have also bought into the mentality of following orders and doing what they are told, just like we do.
Until the average person on this planet realizes war is only a cover for someone else to make money, satisfy an ego or in some cases, manifest evil, it won't stop.
People all around the world have to take responsibility and stand up and say, "1,2,3,4 I won't fight your stinkin' war"
I realize we are many, many generations removed from this. Many people seem to think war is inevitable. I disagree.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. So what do you do when your side refuses to fight and the other side doesn't?

Do you die feeling good about your righteousness?

Do you really think the world would be a better place with Kim of North Korea in charge of everything? He, and dictators like him, are held back only by force of arms, not by tossing flowers.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

59. It seems

by some of your remarks you are determined to show that pacifism consists of 'throwing flowers' or 'singing Kumbaya'
More specifically, I contend most of the 'enemies' we are presented with are nothing but strawmen designed to manipulate the population.
Do you really believe North Korea is hell bent on conquering the world?

[GreenStormCloud]

61. I use NK as an example.

He definitely wants to conquer South Korea. If you were a South Korean, and Kim's armies attacked, would you really want the SK and American forces to not fight? Do you really think that Kim is just a strawman? Was Hitler a strawman? Tojo?

I do not support all wars, but I am not so naive as to believe that absolute pacifism is an answer. Sometimes, you have to fight. Wolves eat sheep. Sheepdogs protect the sheep from the wolves. And the sheep feel morally superior to the sheepdogs.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

63. I recognize the

world is a dangerous place. We are talking about war as it is. I propose war can end when all people decide to stop participating. That includes people everywhere. It takes 2 to fight.
As for wolves, sheeps and sheepdogs, I think you've twisted the absolute nature of the wolf to suit the argument. The wolf is a predator by nature. Human beings, for the most part, are not.

[GreenStormCloud]

64. You do not understand the nature of dictatorships.

Your assumption is that the populace in a dictatorship has the freedom to refuse to go to war. They don't. In a dictatorship, the dictator controls the media, and the populace is told only what the dictator pleases. The people are rigidly controled in a totalitarian dictatorship.

In a democracy, the people have freedom of information, and are able to be well informed. The people can refuse to support a war.

You are wrong when you say it takes two to fight. You can refuse to fight and get the daylights kicked out of you by a violent human predator. Telling him that you are a pacifist and will refuse to fight him will not make a difference to him.

In the modern history of the world, it is exceedingly rare for democracies to go to war against each other. The populace just won't sit still for it.

In almost all wars, at least one of the sides, if not both, has a dictator in charge.

If you really want world peace, then you need to have a mature democracy in every country, with a literate population and women having the right to vote.

The analogy was not twisted. Sheep are pacifists and wolves eat them. That is what happens to pacifists.

I carry a concealed handgun every day. Not because I want to shoot anybody, but because I refuse to be a compliant, easy, victim. What would you do if your home were violently invaded by armed intruders? Remember, if you call the police, you are calling someone else to do violence on your behalf.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

65. This thread is wandering all over

the place. Now you have introduced carrying a gun. My opinion on that is statistically I'm more likely to be murdered by someone I know. Therefore I'll take my chances on the armed invasion of my home.
Historically most all people are, and have been, yoked and controlled by kings or dictators.
We still aren't communicating. I acknowledge that in a dictatorship people are unable to control things. Why? Because someone points a gun at them? Or maybe they don't realize they have a choice. The first step to change is recognizing it's possible..............

[GreenStormCloud]

66. That "murdered by someone you know" statistic has a flaw.

Most people who are murdered are indeed murdered by someone they know. But what is left out is that most of those aquaintance murders are of people involved in illegal activity. Gang members, Mafia members, drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc. When those people are factored out, and one looks at the law-abiding the statistic changes. If you, and your friends, are peaceful law-abiding types, then if you are the victim of violence, it will most likely be a stranger. There are FBI studies that demonstrate that. The concept first began to be studied back in the 1890s.

I discussed guns in the context of self-defense. That is the same context that I am saying that sometimes a nation has to fight - in self-defense. You don't seem to understand the concept of self-defense.

People in totalitarian dictatorships have a choice. Obey or die. Pretty simple and basic. If they make any attempt at change, they are killed. That "first step" is removed, and replaced by their unmarked mass grave.

Between 1939 to 1945 the Jews in Europe tried pacifism with respect to the Germans. We all know how that turned out.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

67. Well, it's time

for me to cease responding. Not because you've been rude or anything, but we unable to come to an agreement on what we are actually discussing. Ben Franklin is quoted as saying arbitration is a better way to resolve differences than war. I agree. You don't. It's ok. See you around DU friend.
:)

[rateyes]

27. So, some wars are "good?"

:shrug:

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Some wars are necessary, unless you are willing to accept the alternative.

In WWII, the alternative was for Germany, Japan, and Italy to dominate the world. I think that was sufficiently bad that it was worth a war to prevent it.

It is like killing in self-defense. One does not want to do it, but sometimes the alternative is to be killed.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. "Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Small Minds"

It must be said that Franklin took a long, long time to become convinced that war against England was necessary.

[jpak]

28. Oh stop it - you'll be claiming that our first president was a bloody warmonger general next

:evilgrin:

[LostInAnomie]

10. Yep, the Civil War was idiotic. We should have just let the South keep their slaves.

I guess that would have been "good peace" according to Franklin.

[rateyes]

11. You're right.

Franklin was a fucking idiot. What the hell was he thinking? :shrug:

[LostInAnomie]

15. He was just doing the idiotic generalizing that a lot of people do regarding wars and peace.

They make silly catch-all statements and act like it's deep insight.

[rateyes]

16. Again, what the hell did he know?

I mean, the only things on his resume that had to do with the subject was his work on the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence (the signing of which took this nation to war), and his subsequent negotions with Britain over the peace treaty that ended the war.

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon."


The world has too many idealists like Benjamin Franklin. :sarcasm:

[LostInAnomie]

17. I wonder if he considered the situation the Colonies were in a the time a "bad peace".

Or, if he considered the Revolutionary War a "good war".

[GreenStormCloud]

18. We are objecting to the absolutism of the statement.

Sometimes the founding fathers were wrong about things. They weren't gods.

I do not claim that the Afghans are Nazis, but I don't have any good thoughts about the Taliban.

My claim, regarding wars, is that SOMETIMES, a war is forced upon a country, whether they like it or not. History has lots of examples of that.

Whether or not the current wars fit that description is a different discussion.

Do you still stand by the quote and maintain that ALL (ALL means without any exception whatsoever) wars are wrong?

BTW - Franklin also supported the American Revolution, so he wasn't exactly consistent, was he?

[rateyes]

26. Franklin didn't say all wars are wrong. He said all wars are bad.

And, I agree that all wars are bad.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Perhaps you should read Franklin's quote again. N/T

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

48. Franklin was hardly a perfect man.

[HuckleB]

37. What did Franklin write before and after the short quote you posted?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

46. Intelligent people can be shortsighted at times.

Founding Father or not, Franklin was no exception to that.

[doc03]

12. Don't you know the civil war had nothing to do

with slavery it was states rights. :sarcasm:

[rateyes]

14. States rights to own slaves.

618,000 Americans lost their lives in the civil war because humans are seriously fucked up. Yet, somehow, Afghanistan reminds me much more of North and South Vietnam than about North and South Carolina.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. NC and SC were BOTH part of the Confederacy.

Please do try to get your historical analogies straight.

Yes, this nation paid a very high price due to the curse of slavery.

[rateyes]

25. I know that.

I was using "north" and "south" to compare wars. Afgjanistan is much more like the Vietnam War than the US Civil War.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. I do not support the war in Afghanistan. In another thread, I have called it "futile". N/T

[anonymous171]

42. South attacked first. It was self-defense. nt

[cali]

23. Never a bad peace?

tell that to the Czechs

[Orsino]

29. All war is horrific.

Every once in a while, there are worse alternatives, but war is always a punishment for policy failure.

Deep down, we know that war is a terrible thing, which is why we have to lie to ourselves constantly to perpetuate it--or even to face it.

[treestar]

34. So why did he support the American Revolution?

:shrug:

If indeed that quote is accurate.

[HuckleB]

36. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." --Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
--Benjamin Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

In other words, Franklin said and wrote much. It's folly to pull a short quote from his writings for anything but humor.

Here's another short quote that may also be a folly to post:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
--F. Scott Fitzgerald

[Tim01]

57. Benjamin Franklin didn't understand humans very well.

Either that or you are giving this little quote way too much weight.

If a group of people has everything they need, and they leave everybody else alone, another group of humans will try to conquer them. That is just the way it is. You can't isolate yourself enough to completely get away from the badguys.
And if the badguys come, the only way to save yourself from the badguys is with violence. Occasionally negotiations and stuff work, but not enough of the time to make it a good solution.

And just so nobody gets confused about my position, I think we should use the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan to develop alternative fuels. The only reason we are over seas is to secure our oil supply. And if we stayed home, the terrorists would have no interest in us.
But if another country decides to conquer or enslave for fun, give them fire and lead.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. Well said. One comment.

I completely agree about developing alternate energy. However, I think we would still have a terrorist problem. Fundamentalist Islam is making a bid for global dominance. They really do want to impose Islam on the world and run the world by Sharia Law. While we all know that they can't achieve that, their terrorism is going to create a major global problem for a long time to come. Globally, since 9-11, Islamic terrorist have committed almost 15,000 seperate fatal terrorist attacks around the globe. A lot of people, in a lot of countries, are starting to get really pissed off at Muslims. I will not be surprised if a global war of Muslims vs Everybody Else does not develop.

[Tim01]

62. Yeah, that is true.

I am actually a lot more concerned about the spread of fundamentalism than I am about a war against them. I don't think we would have much trouble wiping the muslim countries off the face of the earth if it came down to it.You know, with actual war.
But this business of going to other countries and forming separate communities is a different kind of problem. Europe is getting a belly full of that right now. It's kind of hard to go into a neighborhood in your own country and insist the people stop refusing to assimilate.

The Walmart in Detroit is now making special Muslim checkout lines, no pork allowed in that line.

But I still do believe that if we stayed out of the mid east they would be less encouraged to be pissed at us. Though that might just slow down the problem,instead of fix it. As you have suggested.