The Use of Force

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Pacifist. War frightens me as it should you...the only thing more frightening was Bush's outburst during the second debate
War definitely frightens me, but I still see instances when there is no other recourse.
Originally posted by: loki8481
speak softly and carry a big stick.

I think that diplomacy should always be the first option and war should be an absolute last resort, but sometimes it's necessary.
:thumbsup:

"We are not entirely guiltless, we the Allies, because it took us twelve years to open the gates of Dachau. We were blind and unbelieving and slow, and that we can never be again. We must know that there can never be peace if there is cruelty like this in the world. And if ever again we tolerate such cruelty, we have no right to peace."
--Martha Gellhorn, female journalist at liberation of Dachau

"We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."
--Augustine of Hippo

War is a means to an end. It is actually the responsibility of a government to protect its citizens. However, grave danger exists in misuse of this justification to wage an unjust war.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Middle. Never resorting to violence makes you a victim of those who do, and treating as just another tool of international relations instead of a last resort is what caused the dark ages. Seems like trying like hell to avoid it, but using it when necessary is the best policy.

The big stick quote has been played out here, so how about this one?

"Never hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly."
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Depends on the circumstances. Muslim extremist understand only fear. If we can't produce that, they will never allow reason and logic to be the tools of choice. Historically, they have used peaceful periods that were laboriously earned diplomatically to rest, rearm, and attack again. They have proven that they have to be run into the ground with overwhelming force.
 

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
?And one of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites?polar opposites?so that love is identified with a resignation of power, and power with a denial of love.
It was this misinterpretation that caused Nietzsche, who was a philosopher of the will to power, to reject the Christian concept of love. It was this same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to reject the Nietzchean philosophy of the will to power in the name of the Christian ideal of love. Now, we?ve go to get this thing right. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love. And this is what we must see as we move on.?
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I fully supported our troops in Afghanistan, but our troops are being used for unlawful murder in Iraq.

Middle ground.

Me too
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
I'm in the middle but more of a pacifist. I think it is necessary when it means your survival, but otherwise it should be avoided. IE: If you or your allies are being attacked (and said ally is actually asking for help), it is time for war.