What are tanks for?

[silverpig]

Yes, I believe that the actual number of nuclear bombs that have exploded on this planet is somewhere between 2100 and 2200.

Peace requires that all nations and all people be peaceful. If one nation is war like, this means that all other nations must prepare for the inevitable. Educating the people in Canada about peace doesn't really improve the US situation as Canada is not ever going to attack the US. Same goes for the other way around. The only way to stop war from happening through education is to educate people in Afghanistan for example. But, do you think the Taliban would have allowed the US to send teachers over to teach that the US is good and to be peaceful towards them?

 

[Retro2001]

anyways, to answer your question, we dehumanize them because it makes it easier to fight them, and makes it less likely that people will start to feel sorry for them.

That is about 97% of the point of this thread. It seems like it would be a good idea to shy away from dehumanization for exactly that reason. If we remember that the "enemy' is composed of humans with families, spouces, children, pets, etc, then maybe we will all be a little more reluctant to use deadly force.

Using recent happenings to my advantage: I obvously can't know this, but I'd put good money that as the pilots of the hijacked planes were aiming into the world trade center, they were not thinking "Hey, when I do this, 5,000 people will not be going home to their familes tonight" If we relate an "Enemy" to things we hold near and dear, like friends and family, it makes the choice to hate and kill that much harder. Hence, this provides more time for thoughts of alternative solutions to a problem.

Peace,
Will (who seems to be WAAAY left today)

 

[rgwalt]

No, I don't zim. Sorry buddy. I remember reading some stuff after 9/11 about nuke bombs from a link someone posted here. I really don't remember where or what thread it was in. That being said, I don't have any proof to back up my claim. You are right though, nukes are bad news. I guess I was saying that they aren't as bad as people think they are.

Ryan

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Retro2001

anyways, to answer your question, we dehumanize them because it makes it easier to fight them, and makes it less likely that people will start to feel sorry for them.

That is about 97% of the point of this thread. It seems like it would be a good idea to shy away from dehumanization for exactly that reason. If we remember that the "enemy' is composed of humans with families, spouces, children, pets, etc, then maybe we will all be a little more reluctant to use deadly force.

no, it is a good idea to keep that there for exactly that reason. maybe if you realized that these humans and their families, spouses, children, pets P), etc want to KILL YOU, you would think differently.

for the same reason, you have to disassociate your food from life. no matter what you eat, you take life. life of animals, life of plants, etc. if you think about it, what gives you the right to take life away from another living thing? you have no right, that is just what you have to do to survive, and so you just ignore the details.

Using recent happenings to my advantage: I obvously can't know this, but I'd put good money that as the pilots of the hijacked planes were aiming into the world trade center, they were not thinking "Hey, when I do this, 5,000 people will not be going home to their familes tonight" If we relate an "Enemy" to things we hold near and dear, like friends and family, it makes the choice to hate and kill that much harder. Hence, this provides more time for thoughts of alternative solutions to a problem.

yes, well unfortunately the rest of the world does not think that way. that would be like telling cops not to carry weapons because if everybody was peaceful everything would be great. it ain't happening anytime soon.

 

[Retro2001]

Handy fallout link Nuke

Maybe not as nasty, but still not something I'd want to be around.

Peace,
Will

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: rgwalt
No, I don't zim. Sorry buddy. I remember reading some stuff after 9/11 about nuke bombs from a link someone posted here. I really don't remember where or what thread it was in. That being said, I don't have any proof to back up my claim. You are right though, nukes are bad news. I guess I was saying that they aren't as bad as people think they are.

Ryan

I'm not disputing your post Ryan, I was just curious to read and learn more about this issue. Like you said, "nukes are bad news." Yes, it's possible that they have been made "safer ," but I'd just like to know how. My post may have been on the money or maybe your post was, just want more info

 

[GooberPHX420]

KILLING PEOPLE. Same goes for Fighters, Bombers, Artillery, M-16s, etc... This means that when your congressmen vote in a new budget, spending billions upon billions of dollars on 'Defence' those dollars are being spent on KILLING PEOPLE.

If that budget were spent on things like education and (non-military) research, I think we'd all learn that there are better ways to deal with problems than blowing other people's houses up (and KILLING THEM).

Aww, that is a cute little world he lives in!

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: Retro2001
Handy fallout link Nuke

Maybe not as nasty, but still not something I'd want to be around.

Peace,
Will

Thanks for the link Will, I'm off to read it

 

[Retro2001]

Aww, that is a cute little world he lives in!

Why not dare to hope for something better than what you have today? Many if not most of the famous people through history did....Black children and White children playing together(MLK)? Not in my lifetime...

Which world do you live in?

Peace,
Will

 

[Retro2001]

Zim: If you ever have a few days to kill, visit your library and check out this book, " "The Effects of Nuclear War" (Washington: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, 1979)" refrenced in the link. Its an adventure. (mmm....Nuclear Winter...)

Peace,
Will

 

[AlwaysWong]

Nukes being made safer? Should that even be an issue? Instead of spending the money to make "safer" nukes (oxymoron), we should be aiming to dismantle every nuclear warhead ever built. We have enough power to extinguish all life on this little planet... why doesn't this seem to worry anybody? With all the fiction about "great power falling into the wrong hands" we can all understand that our technology can be our downfall. We have constructed a society where those who hold the biggest weapons possess the most power. It is highly improbable to revert that trend. Eventually, our extinction will probably be delivered by our own hands. The human race is an enigma. Why?

Because our senses, thoughts, and morals exist in a balance. With good, there must exist evil. Some say tomatO, some say tomAto. Our own independent thought processes bring about constant disagreement. Disagreements involving strong beliefs and political structures breed war. Our own human sense of individualism is the cause of war. While some of us may strive for peace, others thrive through hatred. Peace is a near impossibility because it would require a sort of worldwide human agreement. Can billions of people agree on any one thing? "Ice cream is awesome!" "No! Sorbet is better and less fattening!" Thus brews a new war. Although it is delightful to dream of peace, I realize it is similar to our concept of infinity. Though we may try to approach it, it will never be reached. So what do we do?

Regardless, nonviolent means should always be considered. Our muscle-bound government has a tendency to flex its biceps first, and rationalize later. We create and/or contribute to vicious circles of hatred. Will our patriotic citizens ever elect a reasonable pacifist politician to lead us? Even if one existed, I doubt we would. Speak softly and carry a big stick. "Somebody" bless America.

 

[Spagina]

Originally posted by: Retro2001

anyways, to answer your question, we dehumanize them because it makes it easier to fight them, and makes it less likely that people will start to feel sorry for them.

That is about 97% of the point of this thread. It seems like it would be a good idea to shy away from dehumanization for exactly that reason. If we remember that the "enemy' is composed of humans with families, spouces, children, pets, etc, then maybe we will all be a little more reluctant to use deadly force.

Using recent happenings to my advantage: I obvously can't know this, but I'd put good money that as the pilots of the hijacked planes were aiming into the world trade center, they were not thinking "Hey, when I do this, 5,000 people will not be going home to their familes tonight" If we relate an "Enemy" to things we hold near and dear, like friends and family, it makes the choice to hate and kill that much harder. Hence, this provides more time for thoughts of alternative solutions to a problem.

Peace,
Will (who seems to be WAAAY left today)

That would be preferable, but unfortunately, if one side were to think this way and one side were to use the dehumanizing approach, guess who would wipe out who faster? While one side ponders the war, the other side wipes that side out, that's why dehumanizing is used in war and is effective. Being reluctant to act militarily during war can lead to thousands of more lives lost on your own side than is necessary. That would ultimately become more damaging. I could honestly care less about an enemies family, I would care more for a family from a soldier of my own nation.

When soldiers go to war, they know that the person on the other side is looking to kill him, as he is looking to kill the enemy himself. The politics of a war may not be black and white, as politics are never black and white, but for the soldier the situation is black and white, kill or be killed.

 

[Moonbeam]

People have no idea how afraid they are. That ignorance makes us stupid. The words we give to that stupidity is good judgement, acumen worldliness, and common sense. But really we are just so afraid. There is only one enemy and we have met him. There is only one war, the struggle to awaken from the nightmare of hell. In exchange for real life we substitute the adrenaline jerk-off.

 

[Kadarin]

Ahh, another peacenik... (sigh) Time once again for the Peacenik Speech:

FUN AT THE PEACE RALLY

When you meet a peacenik...

1. Approach ignorant moron talking about "peace" and saying that there should be "no retaliation".
2. Engage in brief conversation; ask if military force is appropriate.
3. When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
4. Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because this would just cause a vicious circle of more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."
5. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
6. When he is about to punch you back, point out that it would be a serious mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would "be awful and he should not cause more violence."
7. Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.
8. Punch him in the face again, harder this time. Repeat steps 5 through 8 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

but I'd put good money that as the pilots of the hijacked planes were aiming into the world trade center, they were not thinking "Hey, when I do this, 5,000 people will not be going home to their familes tonight" If we relate an "Enemy" to things we hold near and dear, like friends and family,

That's EXACTLY what they were thinking, why is it that hard for you to understand. If they could they'd wipe us off the face of the planet. What you propose is wonderful, but it ain't reality, and will NEVER work. It doesn't even exist in Star Trek.

 

[chickendinner]

yah, they are for murder. You can do nothing to stop that.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

but I'd put good money that as the pilots of the hijacked planes were aiming into the world trade center, they were not thinking "Hey, when I do this, 5,000 people will not be going home to their familes tonight" If we relate an "Enemy" to things we hold near and dear, like friends and family,

That's EXACTLY what they were thinking, why is it that hard for you to understand. If they could they'd wipe us off the face of the planet. What you propose is wonderful, but it ain't reality, and will NEVER work. It doesn't even exist in Star Trek.

They were hoping to kill EVERYONE working in those buildings.. 50,000 people per building. In 1993, the plan was to have one of the towers crash into the other, and have both plummet to the streets. The people behind this would like nothing better than the elimination of the United States and Western culture in general. Remember Mullah Omar predicting the "imminent destruction of the United States"? (And he's Taliban, not Al Quaeda..)

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Retro2001
First, never watch Headline News after 1am....its unhealty.

Anyhow, this fact seems to be lost on so many people, I think its time I shared it. What are tanks (in the military since) for?



Give up?



KILLING PEOPLE. Same goes for Fighters, Bombers, Artillery, M-16s, etc... This means that when your congressmen vote in a new budget, spending billions upon billions of dollars on 'Defence' those dollars are being spent on KILLING PEOPLE.

If that budget were spent on things like education and (non-military) research, I think we'd all learn that there are better ways to deal with problems than blowing other people's houses up (and KILLING THEM).

</rant>
Peace,
Will

Yeah, well thanks very much for your thoughts. It's a good thing ignorant people like you haven't been running this country or you and I would be having this conversation in Russian.

 

[PsychoAndy]

You're a walking contradiction

 

[Red Dawn]

This means that when your congressmen vote in a new budget, spending billions upon billions of dollars on 'Defence' those dollars are being spent on KILLING PEOPLE

As long as they kill them effeciently and in mass quantities then it's money well spent.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: AlwaysWong
Nukes being made safer? Should that even be an issue? Instead of spending the money to make "safer" nukes (oxymoron), we should be aiming to dismantle every nuclear warhead ever built. We have enough power to extinguish all life on this little planet... why doesn't this seem to worry anybody? With all the fiction about "great power falling into the wrong hands" we can all understand that our technology can be our downfall. We have constructed a society where those who hold the biggest weapons possess the most power. It is highly improbable to revert that trend. Eventually, our extinction will probably be delivered by our own hands. The human race is an enigma. Why?

Because our senses, thoughts, and morals exist in a balance. With good, there must exist evil. Some say tomatO, some say tomAto. Our own independent thought processes bring about constant disagreement. Disagreements involving strong beliefs and political structures breed war. Our own human sense of individualism is the cause of war. While some of us may strive for peace, others thrive through hatred. Peace is a near impossibility because it would require a sort of worldwide human agreement. Can billions of people agree on any one thing? "Ice cream is awesome!" "No! Sorbet is better and less fattening!" Thus brews a new war. Although it is delightful to dream of peace, I realize it is similar to our concept of infinity. Though we may try to approach it, it will never be reached. So what do we do?

Regardless, nonviolent means should always be considered. Our muscle-bound government has a tendency to flex its biceps first, and rationalize later. We create and/or contribute to vicious circles of hatred. Will our patriotic citizens ever elect a reasonable pacifist politician to lead us? Even if one existed, I doubt we would. Speak softly and carry a big stick. "Somebody" bless America.

Actually, there is evidence that gorillas and chimps (I think) wage war... and as with most wars, its over territory disputes.

So pizzas are a violent food

I agree with you on the point of nukes. What's the point in have so many nukes when you already have enough to blow the Earth out of orbit...

Unfortunately, even if war is afar... turning the other cheek isn't always the best solution... look at WWII.

 

[her209]

Oh yeah, and in order to achieve a peaceful state, we would have to give up freedom.

 

[DaveSimmons]

the memories?





j/k. "outlaw tanks and only outlaws will have tanks."

Pacifism only works if everyone on Earth abides by it. Until then, cops will carry guns and nations will have armies with weapons of medium and mass destruction.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: rgwalt
War is a sin, but sometimes it is a necessary one.

I just have to ask; I'm reading 'sin' in the Christian context, I presume that is what you intended. If so, how exactly is 'war' a sin? Are the war's that the God helped out in (you know, knocking down protective walls so the inhabitants of some besieged city could be slaughtered) sins too?

Bill

 

[BD2003]

I am going to make this so simple for you you cant not understand.

Assume this situation:
The entire world doesnt want war. So everyone gets rid of their weapons. Then comes along one single country, state, or person, who decides he wants to fight for whatever reason, disagreement, psychosis etc. That country starts killing people, and invading other countries. What does the rest of the world do? They ask nicely for that country to stop killing them, because they have no weapons. Of course, this rogue country has no reason to stop, since it can kill whoever asks it to stop. So we all build weapons, or die by the only country that still has them.

Back to square one. We all have weapons.

This can be done on the level of countries, or the level of people, or whatever level you want. We need police, even if there isnt any crime. Because if there isnt police, there WILL BE crime.

It has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with survival.

And that is why we will never have world peace. There is only one way we can totally have peace and abolish our military. We all agree never to disagree, ever.