I'm against war so my family hates me.

[SuSa]

Link to original post: [drupal=2477]I'm against war so my family hates me. [/drupal]



Yep, so apparently because I am against war (for any reason) and any form of violence that can provoke a war (terrorism for example) I am an unpatriotic ******* who deserves to die.

I am against war. Yes, I understand a war in the form of "self defense" and all that fine jazz, I'm still against it.

I'm against those who enlist for the war - without what I consider a "good" reason. My uncle wanted to join the Army, I asked him why. "To fight for my country." I fail to see how that is possibly worth your life.

You only get one life. Throwing it away for your country is quite possibly the largest waste of a life I can imagine. Now then, there are reasons I feel worth a life. It's just really hard to sway me.

Going to war to save others' lives - Yes, if you can actually prove that by you helping in the war you can help save the lives of the people around you. Join. Are you in the middle of ****ing nowhere and think your town is in danger so you join? Well, you are a ****ing idiot.

Freedom - Unless you lost it, or can prove that by not fighting you will lose it, this excuse is hard to pull off.

Because they has different beliefs then us!!! - Yah, so you like Ritz and I like Saltine. We should go to war for it.

I fight for my country - I wonder why you're alive to be honest. I see you as no better then the hammer in my toolbox. Why? Because you are a tool.


tl;dr
Meh, waste of blog. Wall of text.

 

[ndayday]

I actually agree with this, but I can see how people justify themselves in enlisting.

Would being poor be a good reason? Not poor poor, but just lower income then the average person. My father joined for that reason/so he could get a college education.

 

[Kewkky]

Yeah, sadly, enlisting's seen as an option for people who don't have the resources to get a college education... That's a VERY good way of getting the money, but the risks you might get from being called to do your duty is just... Scary.

And if fighting in war is patriotic, guess that makes America a barbaric country. I'm pretty sure that a peaceful and pacifistic country would be MUCH more popular than a war-enforcing one, and MUCH more accepted by the entire world (as we have seen from the changes between the Bush administration to the Obama one).

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

They think not liking war is unpatriotic?

They would hate me then. I'm extremely unpatriotic.

 

[SuSa]

I actually agree with this, but I can see how people justify themselves in enlisting.

Would being poor be a good reason? Not poor poor, but just lower income then the average person. My father joined for that reason/so he could get a college education.

Considering I don't see college as great as everyone else sees it at, it depends on the circumstance. Then again, I'll find out when I'm older if my belief is good or bad.

 

[Kewkky]

Considering I don't see college as great as everyone else sees it at, it depends on the circumstance. Then again, I'll find out when I'm older if my belief is good or bad.

It's not that it's great... It's that, you HAVE to go there if you're aiming to "make something your life", like parents love to say, but partially is true. Getting a job with no bachelor's, master's or PhD's is too hard in our current world.

 

[SuSa]

I still see education as a means of making a good employee. Not a good employer. Sadly, without education our work force would be horrible and our economy would profit.

My math, history, english, and art teachers have all agreed with me.

Those smart enough to see further then school, and have the smarts enough to make it outside of a 9-5 tend to see very little in school. Obviously, if this was everyone - there would be no work force, thus a horrible economy. So we blind people with education as a means of making them good employees.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

And if fighting in war is patriotic, guess that makes America a barbaric country. I'm pretty sure that a peaceful and pacifistic country would be MUCH more popular than a war-enforcing one, and MUCH more accepted by the entire world (as we have seen from the changes between the Bush administration to the Obama one).

Wait a second, Obama is getting out of Afghanistan?
If you don't get it, ask me.

 

[sammy p]

wow im not very pro war either..... your DEFINITLY not alone! lol
it would be kinda painful to me to think that i could put my life on theline, mabey never see family or friends again or anything else..... thats a truly creepy thought for me

 

[RyuReiatsu]

Considering I don't see college as great as everyone else sees it at, it depends on the circumstance. Then again, I'll find out when I'm older if my belief is good or bad.

THIS. Oh, my, god.

I still see education as a means of making a good employee. Not a good employer. Sadly, without education our work force would be horrible and our economy would profit.

My math, history, english, and art teachers have all agreed with me.

Those smart enough to see further then school, and have the smarts enough to make it outside of a 9-5 tend to see very little in school. Obviously, if this was everyone - there would be no work force, thus a horrible economy. So we blind people with education as a means of making them good employees.

You don't know how much I'd love you if you were one of my parents :embarrass!

 

[Atlus8]

War just f***en sux!

 

[Melomaniacal]

I still see education as a means of making a good employee. Not a good employer. Sadly, without education our work force would be horrible and our economy would profit.

My math, history, english, and art teachers have all agreed with me.

Those smart enough to see further then school, and have the smarts enough to make it outside of a 9-5 tend to see very little in school. Obviously, if this was everyone - there would be no work force, thus a horrible economy. So we blind people with education as a means of making them good employees.

I'm not a big fan of this belief. The whole "education makes you part of the machine!" mentality. You can get an education and not be "blinded."

Education is important... for just about anything. Unless you're trying to make it in the music performance industry (lolgoodluck) or acting/modeling (lolgoodluck) an education is important. It's not "blinding" people, it's education. It bothers me when people look at education as a bad thing. If you have an ambition to become a great business leader (employer), it's best to get what knowledge you can in the field. This is best done through a good education, namely college. Sure, you can self-teach yourself and go out and be an entrepreneur, but I feel like you would just be losing out... on an education. If nothing else, it's at least bettering yourself as a person.
I mean, our most successful (financially or otherwise) leaders have all had a good education.

And I don't like that you look at those with occupations/employees as the blind people. That's offensive. I want to be a psychologist. That means I will get a job as some kind of research psychologist, therapist, etc. That's what I want to do with my life. I'm not going to be "blinded," or brainwashed, or somehow assimilated, or ... whatever. No, I'm not going to own a company, but I will be doing what I love. The same goes for just about any other occupations. If I love to teach, I get employed as a teacher. That's what I want.

Bottom line: education is a good thing. Learning is a good thing.

 

[Kewkky]

Wait a second, Obama is getting out of Afghanistan?
If you don't get it, ask me.

Think of his approaches on all other situations where Bush's administration made enemies rather than friends of other governments... Obama seems to be pulling all of those off better than Bush was doing before he was dethroned. Look at our relationships with Cuba, South America, and a few Eurasian countries... It wouldnt've been possible with Bush's 'assertiveness'.


And school being the only door for blinded people... I think of school as an 'aid' for learning. We can learn whatever we want by ourselves, but the only real way to tell others that we've actually learned it is by earning a diploma that approves of our level of knowledge on the matter at hand. I, myself, would greatly benefit from teachers, since I'm well on my way to getting my Physics degree, and stuff like that is easier to learn if you have someone to answer your questions rather than books and their one-way learning directions (read what's on the books and if you don't get your answer, you're ****ed)... So school's not really a 'limiter', in MY opinion.

 

[Melomaniacal]

And school being the only door for blinded people... I think of school as an 'aid' for learning. We can learn whatever we want by ourselves, but the only real way to tell others that we've actually learned it is by earning a diploma that approves of our level of knowledge on the matter at hand. I, myself, would greatly benefit from teachers, since I'm well on my way to getting my Physics degree, and stuff like that is easier to learn if you have someone to answer your questions rather than books and their one-way learning directions (read what's on the books and if you don't get your answer, you're ****ed)... So school's not really a 'limiter', in MY opinion.

I can agree to that. Though I do think calling it an "aid" is a tiny understatement, since I really believe that it's far superior to self-teaching. I really don't think I could have taught myself calculus or programming nearly as well, or get a full understanding of the material without my teachers.

 

[SuSa]

I'm not a big fan of this belief. The whole "education makes you part of the machine!" mentality. You can get an education and not be "blinded."

Education is important... for just about anything. Unless you're trying to make it in the music performance industry (lolgoodluck) or acting/modeling (lolgoodluck) an education is important. It's not "blinding" people, it's education. It bothers me when people look at education as a bad thing. If you have an ambition to become a great business leader (employer), it's best to get what knowledge you can in the field. This is best done through a good education, namely college. Sure, you can self-teach yourself and go out and be an entrepreneur, but I feel like you would just be losing out... on an education. If nothing else, it's at least bettering yourself as a person.
I mean, our most successful (financially or otherwise) leaders have all had a good education.

And I don't like that you look at those with occupations/employees as the blind people. That's offensive. I want to be a psychologist. That means I will get a job as some kind of research psychologist, therapist, etc. That's what I want to do with my life. I'm not going to be "blinded," or brainwashed, or somehow assimilated, or ... whatever. No, I'm not going to own a company, but I will be doing what I love. The same goes for just about any other occupations. If I love to teach, I get employed as a teacher. That's what I want.

Bottom line: education is a good thing. Learning is a good thing.

Oh, I did not mean it like that in the least. I support getting through school, go to college if you can. Your bottom line is true. I can agree with this.

But so many people say "Go to school to get a good education so you can get a good job" and it makes me want to cry sometimes. That reasoning to me is just so wrong.

Going to school obviously gives you something to fall back on (business is risky, I am not going to blind myself pretending it isn't). Going to school to do something you love, I'm entirely ok with that and think it's awesome. Obviously we all want to work the job we want, that's a no brainer.

I can agree to that. Though I do think calling it an "aid" is a tiny understatement, since I really believe that it's far superior to self-teaching. I really don't think I could have taught myself calculus or programming nearly as well, or get a full understanding of the material without my teachers.

I've had teachers confuse me about things that I was correct upon, thus leading me to thinking I was incorrect for years. Happened in like... 1st grade?

Subtraction is a lie.

You're just adding a negative.

(Yea, I did know that in 1st grade. My Dad was really big on me doing well in math. In 2nd grade I already knew my multiplication table up to 12x12... something I wasn't taught til 5th grade I believe? Maybe 4th...)

RAWR.

(If anyone took that last part as 100% serious. I ask you to touch your funny bone)

 

[MidnightAsaph]

There are far better ways to deal with problems than war, but violence and death are necessary as soon as even one portion of the world wishes to terrorize another. If someone tries to shoot you, and you can either shoot or be shot, it's logical what you must do.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Oh, I did not mean it like that in the least. I support getting through school, go to college if you can. Your bottom line is true. I can agree with this.

But so many people say "Go to school to get a good education so you can get a good job" and it makes me want to cry sometimes. That reasoning to me is just so wrong.

Going to school obviously gives you something to fall back on (business is risky, I am not going to blind myself pretending it isn't). Going to school to do something you love, I'm entirely ok with that and think it's awesome. Obviously we all want to work the job we want, that's a no brainer.

Okay, then I may have misinterpreted what you said a bit. Although it did kind of point in that direction.

I think when you hear that... they don't really mean "so you have the ability to get a good job," as much as "so you can better your chances or secure a good job."

It gives you something to fall back on at the very least. I know plenty of people who literally got good jobs right out of college.
Just be careful with how you word it, because it really sounds like you were saying that education blinds you, and is for lesser people.

I've had teachers confuse me about things that I was correct upon, thus leading me to thinking I was incorrect for years. Happened in like... 1st grade?

Subtraction is a lie.

You're just adding a negative.

(Yea, I did know that in 1st grade. My Dad was really big on me doing well in math. In 2nd grade I already knew my multiplication table up to 12x12... something I wasn't taught til 5th grade I believe? Maybe 4th...)

RAWR.

(If anyone took that last part as 100% serious. I ask you to touch your funny bone)

You mean... there are other ways to add a negative? WTF is subtraction?

But seriously, if a teacher is giving bad information... he/she should be fired.


More on topic:
I agree that war is wrong. Then again, I'm a peace-loving-hippie.

 

[Kewkky]

I've had teachers confuse me about things that I was correct upon, thus leading me to thinking I was incorrect for years. Happened in like... 1st grade?

Subtraction is a lie.

You're just adding a negative.

Actually, the process of going backwards is called substracting, mathematically speaking. If you're adding a negative [1 + (-1)], it's the same as counting that number backwards, which can be summarized easier by calling it substracting [1 + (-1) = 1 - 1]... So, maybe they didn't teach you about negatives until later grades so you wouldn't have to confuse yourself with an even larger system of numbers before learning the basics.

I dunno if what you meant was that the teacher told you that "substraction is a lie!", or that's what you're telling us... If it's the former, then meh, ignore my post.

(Yea, I did know that in 1st grade. My Dad was really big on me doing well in math. In 2nd grade I already knew my multiplication table up to 12x12... something I wasn't taught til 5th grade I believe? Maybe 4th...)

RAWR.

(If anyone took that last part as 100% serious. I ask you to touch your funny bone)

I took it seriously, since lots of elementary school notebooks have 12x12 multiplication tables in the back... I have to admit, I actually learned how to multiply when I hit 2nd grade due to that AND playing with calculators, and was WAY ahead of my class in math subjects.

 

[IxxI]

Link to original post: I'm against war so my family hates me.
I'm against those who enlist for the war - without what I consider a "good" reason. My uncle wanted to join the Army, I asked him why. "To fight for my country." I fail to see how that is possibly worth your life.

You only get one life. Throwing it away for your country is quite possibly the largest waste of a life I can imagine. Now then, there are reasons I feel worth a life. It's just really hard to sway me.

I agree, why throw it away for your country? Unless they truly want to do that, let them go ahead. But I'm pretty sure there's better things to do than risk your life.

Also, what do you plan to do after high school? I'm just infering from what you said earlier that you're not planning on attending college as of now.

 

[SuSa]

Okay, then I may have misinterpreted what you said a bit. Although it did kind of point in that direction.

I think when you hear that... they don't really mean "so you have the ability to get a good job," as much as "so you can better your chances or secure a good job."

It gives you something to fall back on at the very least. I know plenty of people who literally got good jobs right out of college.
Just be careful with how you word it, because it really sounds like you were saying that education blinds you, and is for lesser people.



You mean... there are other ways to add a negative? WTF is subtraction?

But seriously, if a teacher is giving bad information... he/she should be fired.


More on topic:
I agree that war is wrong. Then again, I'm a peace-loving-hippie.

It's just my post points in that direction. I'm not specific nearly enough.

I hate the word "secure" when applied to a job. Same with "safe". It gives that same vibe of "I'm working a 9-5 til I retired" which I oh-so-hate.

But did that job make it so they don't have to work (or work nearly as long) for that same wage? (If it's a job they truly wanted to work, which is more then often the case, ignore that statement)

Basically, I'd much rathers take a bit of a chance doing business (it's not 100% luck) and have to hardly work, then have to work. Luckily the things I love doing, can be done as hobbies. (Create music, program, web design, etc.) Those hobbies can make me money, even though I don't want a job in doing them.

Actually, the process of going backwards is called substracting, mathematically speaking. If you're adding a negative [1 + (-1)], it's the same as counting that number backwards, which can be summarized easier by calling it substracting [1 + (-1) = 1 - 1]... So, maybe they didn't teach you about negatives until later grades so you wouldn't have to confuse yourself with an even larger system of numbers before learning the basics.

I dunno if what you meant was that the teacher told you that "substraction is a lie!", or that's what you're telling us... If it's the former, then meh, ignore my post.

I took it seriously, since lots of elementary school notebooks have 12x12 multiplication tables in the back... I have to admit, I actually learned how to multiply when I hit 2nd grade due to that AND playing with calculators, and was WAY ahead of my class in math subjects.

I was actually kidding about the entire subtraction is a lie bit. Not the 12x12 thing, that was just an explanation as to why I think subtraction is a lie.

They tell you that you are subtracted 5 from 6. They tell you that 5 is a positive integer being taken away from 6. It is not. In reality, 5 is a negative integer being added to 6. Thus is takes away (subtraction)

Thus I always saw my teacher as wrong, and would often times be punished for speaking out (corner, out of class for a bit, little things they do in Elementary School)

 

[Cold Fusion]

I am just wondering. If your uncle joins, will he be in a combat job, or non-combat job?

 

[Kewkky]

They tell you that you are subtracted 5 from 6. They tell you that 5 is a positive integer being taken away from 6. It is not. In reality, 5 is a negative integer being added to 6. Thus is takes away (subtraction)

Thus I always saw my teacher as wrong, and would often times be punished for speaking out (corner, out of class for a bit, little things they do in Elementary School)

I see what you mean, but most problems they gave you to find the solutions for in 1st grade were simple enough to not warrant complicated answers such as what you're describing... Like for example: "Mary had 6 apples, and John took 5 apples from Mary. How many apples does she have now?". The actual process would be translated into text by saying "You substract five (5) from six (6)", but you could also view John as the negative integer that is summing his own possessions into Mary's apple amount (-5 apples, which would then find its entrance by taking 5 apples from Mary) , which would translate into text by saying "You add negative five (-5) to six (6)"...

What I'm getting at, is that in early grades such as 1st and 2nd and wherever it's when they teach you about negatives, you're supposed to be learning and practicing removing quantities from a starting amount, so that then you could start applying the negative amounts as it is supposed to be done in the 1st place... The smaller the system, the easier it is to dominate it, and the faster you do.


And hey, in college, stuff like that still happens! They tell you (in General Chemistry classes) 'PV=nRT' resolves problems for whatever gaseous measurements you may be needing, when in reality the REAL equation is much larger.

 

[SuSa]

I found myself to always work better if they gave me the complicated route with all the reasoning behind it then if they gave me a simple version with no reasoning as to why.

The "FOIL" method really ticked me off until I found the reasoning behind it.

 

[Kewkky]

I found myself to always work better if they gave me the complicated route with all the reasoning behind it then if they gave me a simple version with no reasoning as to why.

The "FOIL" method really ticked me off until I found the reasoning behind it.

I seeeeeeeee...

And, just like you, I do MUCH better knowing the whole actual process than only knowing what they tell me and a little "don't worry, just learn it" message pinned to it... Usually I have to do my own research too to find out why some equations are the way they are, which is why I find Math EXTREMELY fun: it's like a huge puzzle that makes you feel smart when you solve it! Self-esteem grows quite fast...

 

[Darkslash]

My friend wants a WWIII to happen. Of course, that was 3 months ago, but at the time I thought he was off his rocker.

WWIII=Uninhabitable earth.

He claims that no one will use nukes due to the power, but who's stopping leaders?

 

[Eyada]

If everyone on the planet were enlightened like you SuSa, war would be unnecessary. We could just use reason to amicably resolve our disagreements.

Most people are ignorant ****s, however. When an ignorant **** tries to hurt you, you are forced to resort to violence. Thus, so long as there are ignorant ****s, there will be war.

It's unfortunate, but true.

 

[Insetick]

Would you rather negotiate with the terrorists? Who knows where that will lead

Part of the reason why the US went to war is because we're the police of the world. Don't think this is a totally bad thing, either.

Many believe that whatever goes on in the rest of the world is none of our business.

I think this is incredibly selfish. If there are people dying of starvation, we can help them with our surplus food and funds. Likewise, if people are being killed by radical terrorist groups, we can't just leave them be. Letting a person die is just as terrible as murder.

Ideally, there are better methods than war for solving this kind of problem. Negotiation, however has proven to be impossible. What options do we have now, then? How can we use reason to resolve this dispute?

Edit: SuSa, you could make an entirely separate blog entry for education and why it doesn't teach us to be leaders. As always, I'll be the devils advocate and argue against you

 

[Crimson King]

Would you rather negotiate with the terrorists? Who knows where that will lead

Part of the reason why the US went to war is because we're the police of the world. Don't think this is a totally bad thing, either.

Many believe that whatever goes on in the rest of the world is none of our business.

I think this is incredibly selfish. If there are people dying of starvation, we can help them with our surplus food and funds. Likewise, if people are being killed by radical terrorist groups, we can't just leave them be. Letting a person die is just as terrible as murder.

Ideally, there are better methods than war for solving this kind of problem. Negotiation, however has proven to be impossible. What options do we have now, then?

It is selfish, and we should be selfish. Why the hell are we to care what happens in every foreign country when we can barely take care of our own country?

Also, for the world police thing, that is WHY we got attacked on 9/11. We have bases all over the world (we still have bases in Mexico from Spanish/American War), and we have yet to actually leave a country that we helped out. I think the only exception is Vietnam, but we lost that war.

Keeping this in mind, Al-Qaeda operates under the mentality that the West is the root of all evil, and it is polluting the minds of everyone and must be destroyed. With our bases in their country, the fact that we helped ARM Afghanistan in the 80s, and didn't leave for a long time, you create a situation where people who are taught from birth that we are worth less than them and killing us is a good thing are pushed to their limits.

Flipping it around, you basically demonstrate the exact mentality by claiming terrorists are non-negotiable (implying only death can deal with them). That is the same mentality that they have towards us (though theirs is much, much crazier and extreme).

With 9/11, I think we were more than justified in attacking Afghanistan because it harbored the *******s who plotted the deaths of a lot of people. With Iraq, it was a fruitless endeavor that is becoming more and more costly and leaving us vulnerable to any attacks. If, by some freak chance, we had a sneak invasion, we could not pull troops home fast enough. That is why I am opposed to the war. I'd rather protect myself first, then worry about other people.

 

[Jam Stunna]

When I was in high school, I joined my school's JROTC program. I was in it for all four years, and after I graduated, I seriously considered joining the Army. I enjoyed the uniform, I enjoyed the discipline, the rank and command structure, etc. and I (GASP!) actually liked the idea of serving my country.

I didn't join for two main reasons: 1) I couldn't resolve my career path. I didn't want to join right out of high school and be an enlisted man, and I figured that if I had to go to college to become an officer, I might as well go to college and do what I wanted to do in the first place, be a teacher.

2) I was afraid, and that's the truth. I was as afraid to die as I was to kill. I just couldn't get over that fear.

Why am I going on about this? Because believe it or not, there are well-spoken, intelligent, reasonable people who actually join the Army because they actually believe in something larger than themselves. Whether that's family, country, duty, whatever the case may be. Not every non-comm is some redneck from Kentucky looking to "shoot some sand-niggers" or some shiftless college graduate who wanted free government money. People believe in what they're doing. Take Pat Tillman. He walked away from a multi-million dollar NFL contract to fight, and he lost his life. Is he really deserving of your scorn?

Yes, war is bad. But something that people need to admit is that there is evil in this world, and that evil must be opposed. American slavery had to be opposed. Fascism had to be opposed. Osama bin Laden and his compatriots must be opposed. If that means through arms, then that's how it has to happen. That's not to justify Iraq or Afghanistan, but if you think that men who are willing to kill women and children all around the world are going to be stopped at the negotiation table, then you're dreaming.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

Oh, I did not mean it like that in the least. I support getting through school, go to college if you can. Your bottom line is true. I can agree with this.

But so many people say "Go to school to get a good education so you can get a good job" and it makes me want to cry sometimes. That reasoning to me is just so wrong.

I love this. It's how I feel exactly. I seriously don't get why most people seem to think this way.

 

[SuSa]

What are terrorists but heroes for their own country?

 

[Jam Stunna]

What are terrorists but heroes for their own country?

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.



Who do you think this boy considers to be a hero?

 

[SuSa]

Whom are often seen as terrorists on one side can be seen as heroes on another was my point.

Also it's not like the US is perfect and resembles all that is good.

My friend wants a sticker on his car:
"I love my country, but I fear my government."


Guess what is under the control of the government?

EDIT:
Do you think these children see the US as a hero?
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/soldiers_against_the_war.htm

 

[Jam Stunna]

Whom are often seen as terrorists on one side can be seen as heroes on another was my point.

Also it's not like the US is perfect and resembles all that is good.

My friend wants a sticker on his car:
"I love my country, but I fear my government."


Guess what is under the control of the government?

That's why I never used the word "terrorist" in my post, because I know that point is somewhat true. Although I think that "high-minded" people like to say stuff like that to appear enlightened or whatever, but that's besides the point.

Also, I never said the US was perfect or resembled all that was good. You know, maybe if the Indians had the ability to fight against the conquistadors and the American settlers, they wouldn't have been wiped off the face of the earth. The point is that war is bad, but it is at times necessary.

 

[Insetick]

It is selfish, and we should be selfish. Why the hell are we to care what happens in every foreign country when we can barely take care of our own country?

Flipping it around, you basically demonstrate the exact mentality by claiming terrorists are non-negotiable (implying only death can deal with them). That is the same mentality that they have towards us (though theirs is much, much crazier and extreme).

With 9/11, I think we were more than justified in attacking Afghanistan because it harbored the *******s who plotted the deaths of a lot of people. With Iraq, it was a fruitless endeavor that is becoming more and more costly and leaving us vulnerable to any attacks. If, by some freak chance, we had a sneak invasion, we could not pull troops home fast enough. That is why I am opposed to the war. I'd rather protect myself first, then worry about other people.

I believe the terrorists are non-negotiable because iirc, previous attempts towards peace have failed. I also feel that their demands would be unreasonable. If I'm wrong, how can we negotiate with terrorists?
---
So in a developing world, you think we should be completely selfish and let other countries do as they wish? Even with food shortages? Environmental destruction? Human trafficking? Genocide? What if, by not interfering with the rest of the world, we let a terrorist group completely dominate and take control over a country, and it ends up being a genuine threat to our citizens?

That's just speculation, but possible. We can't just ignore the possibility that another Nazi-like regime may arise. What I'm most concerned with is that you don't seem to care that other countries are in desperate need of aid. While we have great financial issues now, you can't deny that the US is still one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations. We have to always try to better our world.

If you had a gun in hand and saw a man threaten an innocent civilian with a knife, wouldn't you try to stop him? In this modern world, we simply cannot be selfish.

"Whom are often seen as terrorists on one side can be seen as heroes on another was my point. "
I could say a lot about this subjective stance, but I'll just say that using reason, anyone can obviously see that the terrorists are incredibly wrong in their beliefs. Just like how the pro-slavery advocates of the US were incredibly wrong. But we've gotten past that, and the terrorists have to as well.

 

[SuSa]

That's why I never used the word "terrorist" in my post, because I know that point is somewhat true. Although I think that "high-minded" people like to say stuff like that to appear enlightened or whatever, but that's besides the point.

Also, I never said the US was perfect or resembled all that was good. You know, maybe if the Indians had the ability to fight against the conquistadors and the American settlers, they wouldn't have been wiped off the face of the earth. The point is that war is bad, but it is at times necessary.

I think I mistook your post for another post.

And it was necessary only to expand our economy. It seems to be what most wars are truly about. Then again, I only take this view because of my history teacher who teaches strictly that "Economy drives the bus" so to speak.

I don't see how it was necessary to basically wipe the Native Americans off the face of the earth. To me it seems we did it for the land, to expand our economy.

 

[El Nino]

I almost enlisted. Once. Long time ago. It would have been a couple years before the war broke out.

Would you rather negotiate with the terrorists?

That depends on a number of factors. Would it lead to a more guaranteed outcome? Would that outcome be favorable? Would the efforts spent on diplomacy be more or less costly than the cost of war? These are variables that have to be calculated and known before that question you pose can be answered.

War is very costly, and it is not beneficial to a state to resort to it unless all other options have been exhausted (paraphrasing some random person called Sun Tzu).

Part of the reason why the US went to war is because we're the police of the world.

No. It is not. There's a reason why the ruling military junta in Myanmar/Burma is allowed to persist without any U.S. intervention while the dictatorship in Iraq has been overthrown.

Letting a person die is just as terrible as murder.

I agree with you on this, believe it or not. I think your heart's in the right place, but your rationale could use some work. Nation-states don't behave the way you seem to think they do, and war is not about ideology.

 

[SuSa]

Random person Sun Tzu is not random. I forgot the ... "more correct" spelling of his name right now.

Also it's amazing how much hate humans still feel towards eachother. Ignorant to other beliefs and hating only because of differences. If anything, I see that as the largest human flaw.

 

[El Nino]

Some comments here seem to take the country of Afghanistan as a homogenous entity that is entirely sided with the Taliban. The only thing I can contribute to this discussion is the mention that the Taliban, during their time in power, carried out a campaign of ethnic cleansing against members of minority communities. So, Insetik's comment about "Nazi-like" regimes is not completely off-base, nor is Jam's remark against a notion popular among pacifists that terrorist groups are always the equivalent of freedom fighters in "their own country."

It's hard to have a discussion when we don't have a working definition of "they" and "us."

Whom are often seen as terrorists on one side can be seen as heroes on another was my point.

Terrorists are capable of the same kind of "spin" that established governments use. Even if we acknowledge that these factions are "seen" as benefactors of a community, I don't find it useful to end the analysis there. We'd have to establish first: Are they actually benefactors of an oppressed group? Are their demands reasonable? Maybe yes, maybe no. They may also be in it for their own gain, while exploiting the sympathies of a portion of the world population under the guise of being their champion. That's to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Too much for this discussion, I know. Just a thought.

I forgot the ... "more correct" spelling of his name right now.

Sun Zi is the romanized Mandarin pinyin.

It is selfish, and we should be selfish. Why the hell are we to care what happens in every foreign country when we can barely take care of our own country?

As you point out, the U.S. has been involved in the politics of Afghanistan since the Cold War. The U.S. armed and trained a group that would eventually spinoff into the Taliban; the U.S. did this so that the Afghans could fight off an invasion by Soviet Russia--all of which amounts to two nuclear superpowers violating the sovereignty of a country so they could get at each other.

However, another way of looking at it is that the flaw with U.S. policy may be that the U.S. never finishes the things that it starts. It never sees a policy through to the end. It did not take measures to ensure that the transitory government set up after the Russian withdrawal was secure; it also decided that religious fundamentalism was the best way to indoctrinate Afghan troops, with no consideration of what would happen after the war.

The U.S. has no choice but to care at this point. This is something that has come back to haunt them; it's highly likely, I'd say (in my incredibly oversimplified view of things), that leaving things unfinished a second time could yield the exact same results.

I just totally broke my rule against talking politics on SWF. Now I'm disappointed in myself.

 

[Cherry64]

El Nino, you are very correct within everything you talked about, to back you up I thought I'd mention a project I did a few years ago in senior year.

It was on dictaters, I chose chile and came across MANY stunning truths, the US had intended to purge all Stallin-Like dictators from countries. They called for Democracy and when they did not get what they wanted, they decided to use force. Not waging a war, but specially-training a special group of Chileans that wanted to overthrow the government and provide Chile with what it deserved. The US gave them weapons and training and on 11 September 1973, with active support from the CIA, Pinochet led a coup d'état which put an end to Allende's government and, along with the Navy, Air Force and Carabineros (the national police force), established a military dictatorship.

this is me providing unnecessary evidence but for the people that refuse to beleive him, the evidence is everywhere, look around you.


Btw El Nino, Write a book, it could be about anything and I'd read it.