Which do you prefer -- the trade wars you now got with Japan and the EU, or the terrorist war you now got with the Moslems? It is your choice as a nation which legacy to leave your next generation.

the trade wars are a result of your and my spending habits.
its pretty simple.. there is a line that any person or country cannot go over as far as what is sold to others compared to what we buy from others.

So don't spend too much partying tonight, Legman ;-)

...have a good one

and a Happy New Year to all joining this debate on either side
R~~

I believe that U.S. Democrats (like my brother) and Republicans (like me) simply have a fundamentally different view of how the world works and therefore how to achieve an objective.

You left out the U.S. Libertarians who think BOTH of your parties have gone off the deep end... :-P

Seriously, the Democrats have moved so far to the "left" in the last 20 years, that they could rename themselves socialists and be more accurate; that is _not_ the Democratic party of my parents. I note that much of the "rank and file" of the Democratic party are _not_ extremists, but much of the leadership _is_.

And the Republicans have moved _almost_ as far to the "right"; when there is a close race between a D and a R, I'll hold my nose and vote for the R, but then I see things like the "Patriot Act" and have to wonder if it was a good idea. Then I think that we could have had Gore on 9/11 instead... <shudder>.

Extremists on _any_ side bother me. I like the general idea of reducing the size (and intrusiveness) of our federal government drastically. Then it won't matter as much "which party" the president belongs to, as he'll have much less power than today. Even as recently as the 1950's, the federal government had around one FOURTH the power it has right now, thanks to activist judges, a totally corrupt congress, and unchecked presidential decrees. Sigh.

On the specific topic (if there is one...) River, since it was a civilian construction facility, then good on you mate. I don't know enough about the whole topic to even _have_ an opinion of "right and wrong" on it, but I applaud your standing up for your principles. But if any of your fellows try the same thing on a military base, I hope their families are prepared to get them back in a body bag, and they'll get no sympathy here, as _that_ would be just flat stupid. (And 'extremist'.)

As far as "will create more terrorism" - no. Doing _nothing_ would create more terrorism. Acting like a big bully all around the world, as we have been known to do, will create more terrorism. Saying "you need to stop that" and then ignoring sanctions violations for years, will create more terrorism. Going in and kicking ass and killing as many of them as we can possibly kill, is the ONLY thing that will get the attention of the subhuman trash who consider terrorism a viable and even preferable option. The survivors will not hate us any more than they already do, but there will be fewer of them, and those who would be tempted to support them will have to at least think twice about whether giving such support might just bring a cruise missle down their chimney. Appeasement doesn't work. As lovely a goal as peace is, peace is only possible when both parties are willing to consider it. Unilateral peace is another word for surrender. As distasteful as it may be, sometimes the only valid response to a situation is violence.

Did Bush/Blair do it right? No. Would it have been better to not do it at all? _Definitely_ no.

---

You left out the U.S. Libertarians who think BOTH of your parties have gone off the deep end... :-P

Sorry, don't know much about Libertarians other than they don't seem to have a party I'd vote for. Always looking for a better alternative, however, if the alternative can sell itself and be persuasive.

...the Democrats have moved so far to the "left" in the last 20 years, that they could rename themselves socialists and be more accurate; that is _not_ the Democratic party of my parents.

No quibble here. I guess that is why Zell Miller "quit" the party and went from Washington back to Georgia and into retirement: he couldn't believe what was going on in his own party. My brother was brain washed by his union, as are most union members, IMO. He just hasn't realized that the Dems of today are not the Dems of yesterday. My retired father -- another staunch union guy -- was equally brain washed because of his past experiences, but he at least has gotten smart since Bill Clinton (whom he hated) over what is happening and the two of us pretty much agree. He can't convince my brother, however. To hear him talk Bush and Republicans are responsible for everything he considers bad, while dems are responsible for everything he considers good, period. Al Gore would have been his ideal candidate.

I note that much of the "rank and file" of the Democratic party are _not_ extremists, but much of the leadership _is_.

Yes, that small knit group running things lately, BUT the rank-n-file follow like sheep and vote accordingly, much to their own detriment in my opinion.

And the Republicans have moved _almost_ as far to the "right"; when there is a close race between a D and a R, I'll hold my nose and vote for the R, but then I see things like the "Patriot Act" and have to wonder if it was a good idea. Then I think that we could have had Gore on 9/11 instead... <shudder>.

I'm Republican (lesser of 2 evils IMO) and therefore biased, of course. I can live with the Patriot Act under the circumstances, it isn't intruding on me or anyone I know.

Extremists on _any_ side bother me. I like the general idea of reducing the size (and intrusiveness) of our federal government drastically. Then it won't matter as much "which party" the president belongs to, as he'll have much less power than today. Even as recently as the 1950's, the federal government had around one FOURTH the power it has right now, thanks to activist judges, a totally corrupt congress, and unchecked presidential decrees. Sigh.

I wouldn't claim Congress to be corrupt so much as just plain self-serving. There is national business that needs to be dealt with, but they're too busy trying to one-up each other such that nothing of consequence gets done (actually, gridlock is good maybe?) As for the size of Govt, what better way to get a class of voters on your side than to have big Govt with lots of employees? These folks won't vote to eliminate their own jobs, afterall!

You left out the U.S. Libertarians who think BOTH of your parties have gone off the deep end... :-P

Sorry, don't know much about Libertarians other than they don't seem to have a party I'd vote for. Always looking for a better alternative, however, if the alternative can sell itself and be persuasive.

I'm no salesman, and a big part of the Lib problem is a lack of salesmen... and that there is a group that joined the party just because they were big "legalize drugs" fanatics, and that's what they're trying to make into "the" major platform issue. The original reasoning of the (relatively low-key) party position on it was that the _Federal_ government had no justification for all of the drug laws under the Constitution; it took an amendment to outlaw the sale of alcohol, but 40 years later all it takes to outlaw something is a stroke of the pen? It should be up to the States. That's not the issue I was concerned with though, that got me looking at them as an "alternative", and I think the emphasis on it is hurting them more than helping.

Generally, L's are the party of limited government, State's rights, and that what government there is should follow the Constitution as _written_, and not as "interpreted". _I_ see many Republicans who are of basically the same opinion on _most_ of the Bill of Rights, but it seems that many don't see a problem with some other parts being ignored as long as it's not _their_ favorite parts. ("I can live with the Patriot Act under the circumstances, it isn't intruding on me or anyone I know.") Democrats just seem to think it's okay to ignore whatever part is inconvenient for what they want to accomplish at the moment, then trot out some other part when they need something to promote their cause; even if it doesn't actually apply.

As far as Congress being corrupt; I don't see much difference between "self-serving" and corrupt... If you want to judge how a Libertarian in Congress would be, look at the voting record of Ron Paul (R-TX); he was the L candidate for president a few years back, figured he could do more good as an R, because then he could actually get elected. (And keeps getting reelected.) New Hampshire, Alaska, and Arizona I believe have a number of L's in state offices, but I really haven't been keeping track that closely the last few years.

---

Hummmmm....if it were up to me.....and this has been said before, stop all our foreign aid, bring all of our military back from where ever and put them on our borders to keep out all foreigners, make America for Americans, and only leave our borders to take what it is that we need.To HELL with the rest of the world.
Sounds so simple, we need oil...if you won't sell it to us at a reasonable price...we will come and take it.How does this sound for foreign policy??

---

On the specific topic (if there is one...)

It seems to be becoming a thread about US politics, rather than about peace/war
in the more general sense. Perhaps inevitable as some of our crunchers are right now getting ready to go to Iraq... maybe I will start another thread later, now I know it won't start a flame war

River, since it was a civilian construction facility, then good on you mate. I don't know enough about the whole topic to even _have_ an opinion of "right and wrong" on it, but I applaud your standing up for your principles.

Thank you

But if any of your fellows try the same thing on a military base, I hope their families are prepared to get them back in a body bag

Anyone taking such action has to think of that as a possibility. Even tho it was a civilian yard, owned by a private comapny, from the time the nuke powere plant was put in it was a fair bet there would be armed guards somewhere around.

The risk always exists. It is not however so likely as you might expect - even in the US. American Peace campaigners following the same 'Ploughshares' tradition as us (or 'Plowshares' in the US) say on their website that they

have entered military bases and weapons facilities

many times - see their site for more info. None has been shot. Partly because all peace campaigners will surrender quickly, obviously, and peacefully ;-) and partly because it is the best trained guards who get to secure those kinds of facility, and it is the under trained guard who shoots first without asking questions. The well trained guard knows how to attempt peaceful apprehension without endangering the facility he is guarding.

Doing _nothing_ would create more terrorism.

Doing Nothing is not what I want.

I am not one of the 'just think nice thoughts and it will all get better' lobby. I stopped using the word 'pacifist' as too many people think it means 'passive-ist'. Including far too many pacifists.

We have got to find ways to respond to aggression that do not themselves involve violence - I guess that is my basic line. If we have not already got those - and often we haven't yet - then we need to spend time and money looking for them.

Your air force did not start designing the C130 when the president asked for ways to get troops to Iraq - you have always put huge amounts into planning in *between* conflicts, creating military infrastructure to be ready for the next conflict.

How much you spend on building up a range of non-violent responses? Almost nothing. If you take the attitude that peace is easy so it don't need investment; of course you got no peaceful options when the crisis comes. You only got the options you prepared earlier.

If you are right that there was no non-violent active response and that it was a choice between military action and do nothing, then that very fact shows that for years beforehand you have been building up your military options and not bundling up alternatives.

When you get to that point, in the short term you might have to take action but also in the long term take it as a signal that you need to put effor tinto thinking of alternatives.

Acting like a big bully all around the world, as we have been known to do, will create more terrorism.

I agree. And sadly that is exactly how what your recent actions look to many people outside the US.

If you feel you need to act as policeman to the world, you need to sign up to the bill of rights of the world. Allow the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction of last resort over war crimes alleged to have been committed by Americans. Jurisdiction of last resort means that only if the US courts refuse to look at a case does it go to the ICC.

Pte England would be exempt from the ICC as she has been dealt with under US law. Her superiors would be liable to appear before the ICC unless/until the US authorities got on with bringing them to public trial in the US. It is simply unacceptable to the rest of the world that her commanding officers have not faced public scrutiny when she says she acted under orders.

Guantanamo Bay - your Government forgets that Americans once held it Self Evident that All Men [are] Endowed With Certain Inalienable Rights. How else can it argue before your own courts that those rights don't apply if you ain't American and you are offshore (eg at Guantanamo Bay).

That does not make it look to outsiders like you want to uphold the rule of law internationally, rather that you want to do whatever you can get away with.

I was very interested when you said that the L party wants to get back to the original meaning of the constitution. What is their position (and what is your personal position) on the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Do they apply to everyone? Or don't the words mean what they say?

River~~

make America for Americans

??????

The Irish Americans, the Italian Americans,the Afro Americans etc., or the indiginous population ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I should have said that this is NOT how I in particular feel about things,I found this opinion interesting and I read it online somewhere. I would assume that the America for Americans would mean the people already here of what ever desent...if your here on a green card or here illegally then you need to go.To take this at face value I would think it means if you are not of American Indian desent you need to go back from where it was you came from . Of course this is not practacle. If you were born here then you are an American in my opinion.
I only offered this up to start a debate and get peoples opinions on the subject.
However maybe it isn't such a bad idea ...since we are seen now as the world's bullies...our way or else, like Bush said on the terrorism stuff...your either with us or against us.

---

So what you`re saying is we play by your rules or not at all, no one else is allowed an alternate viewpoint ?

So when your children break rules or the law that you put in place you do not ask why this may have happened or their side of the story ? You just punish as you see fit ? This also allows you to enter a neighbours property to punish their child who may have weapons that might hurt your kin ? Or to help the neighbour run their family in a way more in keeping with your style ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Isn't that how the US goverment acts???Don't they punish whoever they seem fit to punish,Didn't we enter Iraq to punish Sadam because he might have weapons to hurt us?Don't we bully other country's to make them keep with our style?
Yes that exactly what I'm saying that the world needs to play by the US's rules or not at all, no alternate.
Indeed isn't this how our goverment already acts???

---

Again this is NOT how I feel, I bring this up only for debate.

---

I have looked on this from all sides, it is extremely complex.

A Government`s job is to do the best for and by it`s people, economically and socially. I happen to think that US foreign policy is wrong in a lot of cases, it is my opinion. I also think that British foreign policy of the past that bought us wealth was wrong. Where does that leave us ? Back in the dark ages.

It appears we have two choices, we forgo commercialism in the interest of the planet and watch our kith and kin suffer as per becoming like third World countries or....We go with the commercialism whilst our planet appears to suffer and to an extent some peoples too for the good of the majority in the short term.

If we go with the former then chances are a Country that has decided to go with the latter will conquer and commercialise us...

I feel that to get to a level between the two is the best option but how do we do that when our natural instinct is greed ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

How much you spend on building up a range of non-violent responses? Almost nothing. If you take the attitude that peace is easy so it don't need investment; of course you got no peaceful options when the crisis comes. You only got the options you prepared earlier.

If you are right that there was no non-violent active response and that it was a choice between military action and do nothing, then that very fact shows that for years beforehand you have been building up your military options and not bundling up alternatives.

Totally agreed; "we" did a lot of stupid things that led up to 9/11, that provoked anger, and we did little or nothing to prevent what happened. Had things before that date been done properly, we would have had more options; the problem is that once 9/11 happened, there is only one recourse left.

Acting like a big bully all around the world, as we have been known to do, will create more terrorism.

I agree. And sadly that is exactly how what your recent actions look to many people outside the US.

If you feel you need to act as policeman to the world, you need to sign up to the bill of rights of the world. Allow the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction of last resort over war crimes alleged to have been committed by Americans. Jurisdiction of last resort means that only if the US courts refuse to look at a case does it go to the ICC.

Pte England would be exempt from the ICC as she has been dealt with under US law. Her superiors would be liable to appear before the ICC unless/until the US authorities got on with bringing them to public trial in the US. It is simply unacceptable to the rest of the world that her commanding officers have not faced public scrutiny when she says she acted under orders.

The problem with all of this is that the international BoR is far _less_ inclusive than ours, yet would (potentially) override or supercede ours. The ICC _could_ be used to "overrule" US courts, not just step in when the US does nothing; what if a US court said "nope, no problem" on those officers? Would the ICC just accept that? What is different between that and the US courts/government saying there's not even enough evidence to justify looking?

Guantanamo Bay - your Government forgets that Americans once held it Self Evident that All Men [are] Endowed With Certain Inalienable Rights. How else can it argue before your own courts that those rights don't apply if you ain't American and you are offshore (eg at Guantanamo Bay).

I agree to a point; an actual enemy combatant outside the borders of the US should either be considered a POW (Geneva convention kicks in) or should have all the rights any non-citizen would have _in_ the US. A US citizen should never be told "the rules don't apply because..."

That does not make it look to outsiders like you want to uphold the rule of law internationally, rather that you want to do whatever you can get away with.

Thus my problems w/ the current administration...

I was very interested when you said that the L party wants to get back to the original meaning of the constitution. What is their position (and what is your personal position) on the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Do they apply to everyone? Or don't the words mean what they say?

There aren't any rights in the DoI other than "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and it's not part of the Constitution, having been written _before_ the U.S. existed; I think you're meaning the Bill of Rights being the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, enacted simultaneously. Their position _and_ mine is that those apply to everyone who is a citizen or legal resident of the U.S., and mean what they say. (Or if the language has changed in the last 200 years, they mean what they _said_.)

Unless someone else wants to participate in _that_ discussion, I'd rather take specifics on the BoR etc. offline to email...

---

The ICC would not overturn the decision of a national court where the complainant and the defendant both had a fair hearing.

The problem internationally with the US BoR is that is offers no right of redress to a complainant whose complaints are overturned by executive pardon, by administrative refusal of the DA to refer to grand jury, and so on. In those cases -- and Pte England's superiors are in exactly that category -- the ICC would step in. There would *still* be time to refer the matter to the US courts before the ICC agreed to take the case.

We need -- both in my country and yours, if I may say so -- a constitutional right to have complaints heard by due process, just as much as the defendant needs the right to have their defence heard by due process. In both our countires the executive claims and uses the right to exempt its own officers from due process when executively expedient.

As I understand your system, the ideal place to make that decision is the grand jury. 15 (I think) citizens not connected with the executive get to make the decision.

Put the officers in front of a grand jury; allow every complainant with different evidence to put that before the grand jury; document (as you already do) the giving of that evidence and let the jurors decide in private. If the grand jury then votes to say "no problem, not enough probable cause to indict" that would be the end of it. The ICC would be prevented by its own statutes from interfering.

With the exception of the issues around executive amnesty/clemnency the US judicial system far exceeds the minimum standards expected by the statutes of the ICC and the Court would not - and *could* not - interfere.

The reason, in my foreign opinion, that your administration wants out is not to protect the rights of the accused, but to preserve its own ability to protect its own 'plausibly deniable' guilty.

re Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc

Unless someone else wants to participate in _that_ discussion, I'd rather take specifics on the BoR etc. offline to email...

Details of exactly which right and exactly what document, I am happy to continue out of the public gaze.

But the three general points, that the ideals quoted in the US DoI encapsulate much of modern international law, that the DoI itself was and is an important contribution to international law, and that therefore the US puts itself in an odd situation when it ignores them, those are all points I will often refer to whenever I see references to being the World's Policeman.

The police officer acts under laws drawn up with representatives of those they are policing. If the standards of policing are set by a constitution which only Americans can change, they lack the essential ingredient of representation as soon as you try to "police" outside your borders.

However wonderful the national BoR is in all other respects, without international representation in defining that BoR you are not acting as an international police force but as something else.

River~~

The problem is that I would say a definite "yes" to Afghanistan after 9/11. And _probably_ a "yes" to Iraq as well. In this case _we_ were attacked, and a response _is_ justified.

My view is that the response your Government has chosen will increase terrorism against the continental US, not decrease it. You can't fight guerillas with a military machine as was discovered in VietNam, and guerillas are closer to being military units than the terrorist cells we are facing now. Victory by the US in Iraq will generate terrorism against the US at home.

Mr Blair knew there were no nukes in Iraq but he pretended otherwise. He told us he went to war to find the nukes, not to prevent terrorosm.

In a democracy if the leaders try to buy the public's support by lying then the actions they promote cannot be justified at all. It is not for me to say whether your own leaders were more truthful than mine at that time.

How can you fight to uphold democracy by subverting your own democratic process? I refer to Mr Blair, it is not for me to say if the same question hits home in the US.

Some response was clearly needed, just not a military one.

This war won't work in the long term and was already wrong even before the leadership discarded their own integrity to get it through Parliament.

On the _specific_ topic of someone breaking into a military base

This was not actually a military base; it was a civilian shipyard. The boat was not yet military property not having been handed over.

... I'm sorry, but I would have no problem with "shoot first ask questions later", and I believe that's exactly what _would_ have happened at a Navy base here.

In Britain you are more likely to be shot near a conventional ammo dump guarded by squaddies just off basic training than at a nuke base where the guards are well trained. My guess is it's the same for your bases. I know of many US peace activists, but not of any being shot.

_some_ minimal attempt should be made to apprehend peacefully, but any resistance at all should not be tolerated.

Absolutely so.

My policy is to make a clear and obvious surrender immediately on discovery, and I wouldn't work with someone who felt differently. Hands open away from sides drop any tools but drop them gently and slowly etc. Partly because we don't want anyone to think we are fighting violence with violence, but more because we don't want to get shot.

But I think the policy is that the attempt to apprehend peacefully is not minimal but is the greatest possible attempt consistent with safety. And I think that is exactly right.

River~~

You are utterly wrong, doing nothing has always throughout history led to agression and you have no concept of what the professional soldier is to ever make any claims about them.

---

http://www.christianboards.org/forum.php
http://usalug.org/phpBB2/index.php

You are utterly wrong, doing nothing has always throughout history led to agression and you have no concept of what the professional soldier is to ever make any claims about them.

Please read my postings again. The surrender immediately policy applies to unarmed activists, not to a military situation.

In the context of military confict I said this:

Doing Nothing is not what I want.

I am not one of the 'just think nice thoughts and it will all get better' lobby. I stopped using the word 'pacifist' as too many people think it means 'passive-ist'. Including far too many pacifists.

We have got to find ways to respond to aggression that do not themselves involve violence - I guess that is my basic line. If we have not already got those - and often we haven't yet - then we need to spend time and money looking for them.

and I stand by that.

In the meantime, providing serious efforts are being made to develop non-military responses to military force, there will be times when military action is the least-worst option - and I am content to agree to differ on exactly when those times are.

What I reject is the refusal to look for better, more peaceful, options for the future.

You say I have no concept of the professional soldier - lets reflect that back on a national scale - to my country not yours.

The UK spends hundreds of billions of pounds annually researching military options, and around a hundred thousand pounds on a single department of peace studies. How can anyone claim to understand whether and when non-military options would work when for every pound spent on those options a million pounds goes to military research & development?

It looks to me that our Ministry of Defence has no concept of peaceful response, *only* of the professional soldier (sailor, pilot, etc).

R~~

The UK spends hundreds of billions of pounds annually researching military options, and around a hundred thousand pounds on a single department of peace studies. How can anyone claim to understand whether and when non-military options would work when for every pound spent on those options a million pounds goes to military research & development?

It looks to me that our Ministry of Defense has no concept of peaceful response, *only* of the professional soldier (sailor, pilot, etc).

I am not sure that is completely true. And I base this on a few observations:

1) US and UK doctrine on war-fighting is similar with some national flavor of course
2) Both countries have significant special forces groups
3) Part of special forces doctrine is the "Hearts and Minds" type campaign. Though derided, the US was somewhat successful with these campaigns where conducted by the Marines and Special Forces groups in Viet Nam
4) The UK have been one of the few countries to successfully prosecute a campaign against an insurgency and win (Malaysia).

But, I also agree that there is not enough done to explore peaceful means of reducing the need for war. Toby said it well in one episode of West Wing, "Free trade stops wars." Simplistic, but a grain of truth. Prosperity, when lacking, leads to all sorts of bad things ...

At one time in my life I had high hopes for the UN, then for the EU. So far, well, lets just say I am underwhelmed. I would much prefer to be whelmed if it is all the same to you ...

But the sad truth is that the UN has become in large part a forum for Anti-US activities. I am not saying that the US is blame free (if you wish we can get into the historical truth about war crimes and if the US, UK, France, USSR, etc. are as guilt free as they would like us to believe - and just a warning - I read history for entertainment :)), but, much of what passes for activity there is sadly disappointing.

The other part I am somewhat saddened by much of the peace movements is their seeming unwillingness to ever say enough is enough.

And, we can even see traces of the problems within our own little world where a variance in belief becomes not a matter for discussion and thinking, but for yelling and screaming. I can agree with River that we perhaps do not look at the alternatives enough, but, there is a point where enough is enough and it is time to lock and load, pull the trigger and come crashing down like avenging angels with overwhelming force.

All wars are atrocities. Our current Iraq thing was probably done at the wrong time, certainly for the wrong reasons, absolutely against the available evidence, inadequately planned, executed "on the cheap" with no real thought for the follow on needed ... as such we now have grabbed the tar-baby and are stuck ... with no end in sight ...

---

The UK spends hundreds of billions of pounds annually researching military options, and around a hundred thousand pounds on a single department of peace studies. How can anyone claim to understand whether and when non-military options would work when for every pound spent on those options a million pounds goes to military research & development?

It looks to me that our Ministry of Defense has no concept of peaceful response, *only* of the professional soldier (sailor, pilot, etc).

I am not sure that is completely true. And I base this on a few observations:

1) US and UK doctrine on war-fighting is similar with some national flavor of course
2) Both countries have significant special forces groups
3) Part of special forces doctrine is the "Hearts and Minds" type campaign. Though derided, the US was somewhat successful with these campaigns where conducted by the Marines and Special Forces groups in Viet Nam
4) The UK have been one of the few countries to successfully prosecute a campaign against an insurgency and win (Malaysia).

But, I also agree that there is not enough done to explore peaceful means of reducing the need for war.

This is a very encouraging observation.

Just think what we could achieve with equal funding on alternatives to military action...

R~~

Spending money for peace?
If you do not wish for war, prepare for it.
If you do not want to shed blood, be ready to do it.
How different our world would be today if only nations had stood for what is right in 1932 instead of appeasing some sick bastards.
If you want peace.....prepare for war. Arm yourself and proclaim to the world "We will put a serious hurt on you you if you attack"
I wish people would seriously consider how many wars have been averted because my nation is so massively armed. My minor is in history....Just perhaps think about what would have happened if there was not a massive military power called the United States of America in the last 60 years.
Think about what kind of world we would live in had it not been for the professional military men of Great Britian, Australia, and the USA.

---

http://www.christianboards.org/forum.php
http://usalug.org/phpBB2/index.php

...How different our world would be today if only nations had stood for what is right in 1932 instead of appeasing some sick bastards...

I agree totally.


and how different again might our world be today if instead of only using violence to stand up for what is right, we actually put money and effort into finding non-violent ways of powerfully upholding the right

How often do I need to say this?

I am not for appeasement, I am not for doing nothing, I am not for turning round and ignoring the problem.

I am for actively searching for ways that are both non-violent and powerful - at the moment we are not even looking for them so it is no surprise we don't have those solutions.

The only reason we ain't looking is that too few believe there is any answer in that direction.

The only reason there is not yet an answer is too few are looking in that direction.