Quote:
|
Here's the problem: How do you reach a political solution with a person/group who's only goal in life is to literally kill you, destroy your culture, society, and country, and impose their religion and views on you and the rest of the world? The source of the problem is that from their point of view, there's no compromise possible. I'm in Iraq, I've been here for over 2 years. I've seen enough first-hand to know something of which I speak.
|
your problem is a war in a country, where terrorist from all over the world travel to, to fight against you. for me, these terrorists can all be erased, got no problem with that. but if you think this is the only way it goes, well, your opinion. the process going on in the arabic countries, is a process like it has been in europe over 500 years ago. for me, regarding their society structures, they are far behind us, but they overhaul. this process is more comprehensive than you might think. in the history of europe, many wars have been fought by religious causes, it was part of our history to achieve what we got today. our problem today is: we sell them weapons, train them in terror-tactics, financiate them and finally wonder when they turn against us. thats the point we should think about.
i say, leave them alone, donīt help them, sell them anything, let them pass their cultural developments on their one. but this is much more complex as to explain here in short form.
I agree, leave them alone, don't help them, and don't sell them anything. But, they won't leave us alone. For 25 years, they've been attacking the West. They've said publicly, many times, that their goal is to destroy Western civilization, so Islam can become the universal religion and law throughout the world. Yes, it's terrible that religion has been used to justify so much war, death, and destruction over the centuries. Does the fact that this happened in Europe 500 years ago, mean that we must accept these attacks today?
Quote:
|
It's ironic that you consider the Nazis "barbarous men", yet you apparently believe the right thing to have done after 9.11 was to reach some sort of political compromise. The 9.11 attacks weren't barbaric? People being forced to jump out the window, to certain death, to avoid being roasted alive, isn't barbaric? Think for a moment what it must have been like for them, being forced to make that choice. If that's not barbaric, I don't know what is.
|
read again, i didnīt say what you are trying to assume.
This is what you said: Nazis are "barbarous men". I agree 100%. Also, you said earlier, that "i had a lot of discussions with a friend from britain about 9.11 and afghanistan. my education is to solve a problem political, find its sources to achieve a solution." I'm not trying to assume anything. Either the 9.11 attack was barbaric, or it wasn't. I'm pretty sure you'd agree it was. So, my point is, you condemn Nazism as barbaric, yet you say we should solve the 9.11 attack politically, find its sources to achieve a solution. Sorry, but I don't think it's possible in this case. We know what their solution is, they've already told us.
Quote:
|
We're supposed to sit down, negotiate, and reach a political compromise? Polical compromise didn't work with Hitler, either, did it?.
|
study the history, and youīll find out, that in the beginning of the expansion politics of the Nazis, their neighbours neglected political sanctions. the only action was a condemn in the league of nations. thats not consequent and it is like today. the UN does realy not condemn any countries actions or even impose a sanction.
I do study history and what history shows, is that engaging Hitler in the political process didn't work. As far as other countries neglecting political sanctions, that's a "what if" scenario. Who knows what would have happened then? I agree, in today's world, the UN is often ineffective in dealing with these problems.
Quote:
|
As far as "a government sending their people into a war, is ruthless and worthless.", Britian and France were the ones who declared war on Germany, not the other way around. So, by your definition, the British and French governments were ruthless and worthless.
|
you only read want you want. i wrote every country. not only british and french. a war is always battled on the back of the underclass, thats the point i was talking about.
I'm only reading what you wrote. Again, "a government sending their people into a war, is ruthless and worthless.". Now, you say every country, not just British and French. So, you're saying every government that sends it's people into war is ruthless and worthless? Because America sent people to war against Germany, America is ruthless and worthless? "A war is always battled on the back of the underclass, that was the point I was talking about.". Well, it's not what you said. Also, define "underclass". My grandfather was a successful businessman. His sons fought in WW2, and one of my uncles is buried in France. My father was a successful businessman, and both my older brothers fought in Vietnam. I have a university degree and a successful career. My oldest son was in the Marines, and my middle son is in the Marines as we speak. Especially now, given that the Western military forces are volunteers, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. No one is being forced into military service.
Quote:
Please, think about what you're saying, and what would be the logical outcome of your views. Throughout history, there have always been people/groups who wanted to impose their views on others.
I'll grant you, democracy is a sometimes messy and inefficient form of government, but it's the best one so far, for protecting the rights of it's members. Trying to reach a political compromise with dictators and tyrants is just not possible. Just remember, the only reason you can have these discussions with your British friend, and post your views here, is because of democratic goverments. Do you really want to give up those rights?
|
you make me angry, you should become a advocate. i didnīt wrote anything about abolishing democracy, so why do you say that? Yoi say a political compromise with dictators is impossible? so why did your government work together with saddam hussein against iran since 1979? i hope you know about it.
Why do I make you angry, and why does that mean I should become an advocate? I didn't say you wrote anything about abolishing democracy. What I said is that if you simply give in to dictators and tyrants, you lose your rights. Yes, we supported Saddam against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War. This was after Iran assaulted and seized our embassy and took our citizens hostage. We also supported Stalin against Hitler, even after Stalin killed millions of people in his own country, before the war even started. In both cases, we shared a common foe. This is why people say that politics makes strange bedfellows.
to come back to the main statement: a war is always bad, for the country attacking, defending, it doesnīt matter. i think every country should always try to prevent a war as good as possible. actually this is not happening today, that is sad.
and please stop assuming such bull****, thx.