SS, you assume that such weapons will be used.

Besides, if you're attacking some countries then who is to say they won't store such weapons in residential areas? If you use a weapon that destroys their stockpile in the area then you can be claimed to have committed an atrocity upon the civilians. If your attack just releases the agent then you may be claimed to have used the weapon yourself.

Maybe doing nothing, and letting them continue to act as deterrents is better, rather than making those who have them think "They are going to go for me anyway, I might as well use them."

S

Americans, have not been accustomed to great hardship since our Great Depression days and the following dust bowl.
Honestly, most people here go bananas if there is a little Earthquake or a few feet of snow. I appreciate modern conveinences too, but our founding fathers had originally intended the people of this country to be more self-sufficient. Freedom requires its people to be so, otherwise we all run the risk of lessening "freedoms". All the programs we keep voting for do come with a price---that is one of them. Our "freedoms" come from our Constitution and our effort. People who have grown up in this country tend to take for granted the fact that there is no "free lunch". If you want Socialism go to Canada, Sweden, or England. And more power to you. I certainly don't want to get into a pissing contest here, you have your belief, I have mine, and we won't get jailed for it in this country.....yet.
As to the second point you made. I believe peace is something we should all strive for--harmonious peace. I also have no illusions about this world of delusion bringing it, though it is our duty to make constant effort. Even wise men realize that war is sometimes necessary though not preferrable or ideal in any way. Without resistance we are all slaves. I am not saying that I neccessarilly believe "this" war is a well concieved idea. I believe we get what we give out, and I know there will be a return for everything.
As to surveillance I am well informed on that thank you, and I still don't support it. As to I.D. cards and chips ditto. I am well informed, thanks.
As to the nuclear threat, my husband recommends going to Google and typing in " map a blast " that will bring you to a web site that will depict ratios and distance and factor winds, length of time and elevation. God Bless Us All. And for all those who are atheists--best of luck to you to.

Points taken, and apologies for appearance of patronising tone in ID card/chipping comment.

However, this still doesn't relate to your first point suggesting that in the US you have more freedom than those in the UK. What made you think that?

S

To borrow Garnet's term, I'm all for "harmonious peace." Just not "peace whatever the cost." The 14th Dalai Lama tried that form of absolute pacifism when dealing with the People's Republic of China.

Can you find Tibet on a map nowadays? I can't.

Extreme pacifism in all circumstances is only effective foreign policy if your opponents embrace the same creed. That ain't gonna happen within our lifetime.

SS



Edited By StarvingStudent47 on 1045949007

Tibet still exists. Also, to be honest- the 14th Dalai Lama tried absolute pacifism. The Tibetan people didn't. They are still alive, many of them still have their culture.

Of course, if you are opposed with unreasoning violence then pacifism may not work. Though sometimes it does. I have seen an example of this in its purest form between two people.

So, maybe try learning a bit more about Tibet before you try to use it as an example of the failure of pacifism? After all, it wasn't an example of pacifism.

An example of pacifism... how about the Battle of the Beanfield (I posted a link about it before)- the hippies had the shit beaten out of them by a bunch of police. Was that a failure of pacifism? No, because what would've happened if they had fought back? They would've then most probably ended up locked up for a fairly long time for resisting arrest. What happened instead?
Well, there was little coverage of it by the media. I'm not even sure if the police actually held any investigations into it. However, I would point to that as an example of a success of pacifism in making a situation no worse than it already was, where violence would've made it worse.

"I've seen a pregnant woman lying in blood of her own, I've seen her children crying as the police tore apart their home"

S

No, actually, it really doesn't exist.

The sovereign state known as "Tibet" does not exist. I never said Tibetan people were all killed, but the state DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE. If Britain hadn't fought back against German aggression in 1941, Britain wouldn't exist either.

You can't make an analogy between individual humans and states, because individual humans can't annex and conquer one another. States can.

SS

Proper Socialism in the UK died with the miner's strikes and the rise of New Labour, which is probably the most Business-friendly political party in this country. Now sorry to get all snide, but it really pisses me off when people call us a Socialist Country just because we have a National fucking Health Service. Same goes for Canada; the last I heard they had this little thing called a "Capitalist Economy" much like Britain, Sweden, France and practically EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY has. Now if you've actually read Marx and Engel's original writings on Socialism (not to be confused with Communism of course) you'd understand that calling us a Socialist country is, well, pretty fucking dumb.

Again, sorry to be mean, but little things like that just get right on my tits.

Good point, tragic.

SS- Now, you said that Tibet did not exist. You were wrong. Tibet exists. Just because it isn't on a fucking map doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I mean, for crying out loud- the people who are referred to as Tibetans still exist (barring the ones that have been killed by the Chinese). They still occupy most of the same lands they once occupied. They still live mostly the same way they used to. They still follow mostly the same religion they did before.
So, the only place they don't exist is on the map. That is not grounds for saying they don't exist.

In any case, as I said- Tibet was not an example of passive resistance. Sure, the Dalai Lama didn't fight, and encouraged others not to- but others did. So, how is that pacifism?

S

1) Life in Tibet is IN NO WAY the same as when it was a sovereign state. Actually, it's diametrically opposite. Tibet was a theocracy--rule by the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy. Now it's Maoist Communism, where the practice of religion has been outlawed, and the practice of other national traditions (clothing, dress, and language) were violently surpressed during the Cultural Revolution.

2) The Tibetan government and the mass of the Tibetan people did not fight against Chinese annexation. A few did. You are claiming that if those few hadn't fought against the annexation, China wouldn't have annexed the territory? That doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.

If the UK hadn't shot down German bombers during the Battle of Britain, would Germany have stopped attacking and let Britain be? If the Soviet Union hadn't fought against the Nazi invasion, would the Nazis have abandoned that invasion and their goal of lebensraum and enslavement of the Slavic peoples? That is what you are arguing. It quite simply makes no sense.

SS

Tibet does not exist as a sovereign state. It was annexed by China.



The Tibetans as a people exist, but not as a sovereign state.


Lilith

Forgetting arguing such points, or attempting to.

My skills in such debates are not sufficient to put across the points I am trying to make. My background knowledge is too limited. The points I am trying to make may also be flawed. Whatever may be true about this, it is wasting everyone's time and promoting conflict, not consideration. Therefore I will try to stop.

S- Emotions needing trimming.

This world is going to hell in a hand basket. What future will we bring our children into? Technology breeds death. *laughs* Human nature breeds death...

Technology is a tool. It no more breeds death than a finger breeds death. In order for a tool to cause injury or death, there must be one willing to use it. Therefore your second comment was more applicable.

S