War

 

   This is it. (***)

   War is ugly & destructive & has an effect upon everybody, surviving or not. If war has some cosmic purpose for & by itself it is unknown to me at this time. I am reminded of Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. V,39; Luke VI,29).

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

   But, like the Golden Rule, it is much harder to apply to groups or masses of people who are not all in communication with each other or in agreement together nor are all Christians.

   At the personal level I have an all or nothing approach.  I shall do everything in my power to avoid a conflict. But, if you insist on fighting then I will do everything in my power to kill you or make it so that you will never again force me to fight you.  I come to this not from pacifism but from strength.  This stand is not good for whole countries because not everyone in a country is so committed. Each enemy is different, each era & war is different. In WW-II a couple of atomic bombs ended the war with Japan.  Now our enemies may have atomic weapons. Armies against armies is going out of style & insurgents & terrorists showing up in the midst of our country is a distinct possibility.  Death is desirable for the martyr & is not much of a deterrent for the hypnotized & insane. 

   This is not about Evil, though - it's about war & going to war. Triangulation with evil is not power but love.

   The solution is one by one to outlaw war. Gather a core of people & countries who totally outlaw war as a medium of change & political achievement & gather it into a critical mass such that anyone, any group or any people who start a war of any kind are swiftly dealt with in such a way as to become completely isolated from the rest of the humanity until that group, people or head of state transforms & agrees to the principles articulated here (& in the future) whole-heartedly. 

   That being said, another principle needs to be articulated such that those who outlaw war have something to guide them.  The principles that guide must include:

1. Freedom - the right of all people to live in freedom and dignity
2. The freedom of the individual conscience: to change religions or have no religion at all
3. The equality of dignity of women and men 

4. The right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion

5. The willingness to share natural resources in a dynamic equilibrium with the rest of the world such that all parties are benefited

6. A wonder & love of the differences & similarities of all peoples & cultures that populate the Earth.

7. (Consider also some rights in current documents such as the U.S. Constitution & other international documents.)

This is a first draft - others may come.

Comments

Mark de LA says

M 2008-06-11 18:46:21 10284

So how would you apply your nice principle to stop Iran from accomplishing it's declared goal to wipe Israel off the face of the map; possibly with nuclear weapons?

Obama promises : "I'll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything" to AIPAC! I wonder what that is? Does it really align with Seth? Including war?

As the principles in this item get fleshed out by reality, I will move or create new items for the specifics.

Mark de LA says

As far as banning all nukes, it's as simple as banning all guns.  Try banning all guns in your neighborhood & I suspect that the only people who will have guns are the criminals. In particular, banning all nukes will suddenly make a critical mass of nuclear material & bombs available for dis-assembly & the black market. Not everyone in Iran desires death & martyrdom over life. If they did, I would suggest giving it to them first.  The fact that they all don't gives leverage for alternatives. The fact that we do have a nuclear deterrent also makes alternatives possible.

Seth says

M 2008-06-12 10:53:56 10284

So to tease this out a bit more: Is it within the Seth principle that those who are spreading their doctrines such as China of communism are to be left alone?  Are those who suppress their own people, like Saddam Hussein who changed his homeland by violence, to be left alone? Is Iran who exports terrorism to Israel, Lebanon & Iraq to be left alone.  How would Seth's war principle ever be carried out in practice? Are we to believe that it is best to wait until the bombs fall on our homeland before taking action?

Basically i don't accept the premises in your assertions.  China is not spreading communism - the soviet union was, but we all know what happened to it.  The current administration's adventurism has not made us safer -- rather the opposite.  Say whatever you like about Sadam he balanced the threat from Iran nicely.  And this alleged war on terriorism is pretty much a made up enemy and a overaction to a small band of extreamists.  Making a war is a matter of getting people to believe in a threat.  Making them afraid.  Take all of that super hype out of the equation and, in most cases, you won't need a war.  A threat to our homeland must be real and imminent then it is self defense. 

The threat to Israel is another question.  They are in a precarious position over there.  That situation needs some serious re-thinking.  As to the nuclear threat - it is real.   The problem is the nukes themselves - not a particular country having them.  The solution is simple, but takes a lot of courage: get rid of all of them.  

Mark de LA says

Ask Tibet about China's spread of communism. Consider Cuba & Venezuela who are moving rapidly in the same direction. Glad you thought Saddam Hussein was beneficial - you didn't mind when he invaded Kuwait, eh? Loved it when he & his sons raped & tortured his people because he balanced Iran, eh? Most of the rest of your stuff is anti-war, anti-Bush rehash of TIRED Iraq war rhetoric.  See 4413 for an explanation. No solutions is what Bill C. did to prepare for 9-11. Take them all to court, eh?

 

Seth says

M 2008-06-12 11:59:37 10284

seth 2008-06-12 11:52:06 10284

source: M above
you didn't mind when he invaded Kuwait, eh?

That was self defense (of an ally).  See the difference. 

Actually I will invoke the Seth & John F. Kerry nuance rule - Iraq was up to the time considered an ally against Iran & got weapons support from the U.S.  This must have been an ally against an ally situation. The US liked Iraq more than Iran whom Carter allowed to take our embassy.

Iraq clearly invaded Kuwait which was our ally and we justifiably defended them - your fuzzy history notwistanding.  I believe the Iraq/Iran war was, at that time, years in the past. 

Note also, in support of my principal, that the major US wars honestly justified by self defense, have ended in victory.  Those that were not, ended in quagmires:

War	Victory	Quagmire	Self Defense
WWI	yes		yes
WWII	yes		yes
Korea	?		yes
VietNam		yes	no
1st Gulf war	yes		yes
Iraq invasion		yes	no

Mark de LA says

seth 2008-06-12 11:52:06 10284

source: M above
you didn't mind when he invaded Kuwait, eh?

That was self defense (of an ally).  See the difference. 

Actually I will invoke the Seth & John F. Kerry nuance rule - Iraq was up to the time considered an ally against Iran & got weapons support from the U.S.  This must have been an ally against an ally situation. The US liked Iraq more than Iran whom Carter allowed to take our embassy.

Mark de LA says

Well, Seth your brain is the fuzzy-buzzy one! We sold weapons to Saddam and this following picture might jog your brain. Apparently things soured after he invaded Kuwait.

Mark de LA says

So Saddam Hussein became an enemy after he was an ally after he invaded Kuwait. And then he became an enemy after he refused to comply with the UN resolutions; having shown that he would threaten his neighbors.

Seth says

M 2008-06-15 10:12:14 10284

source: ...

You old addage does not work here because guns are low tech, but enriching uranium is very high tech.  Once all the bombs are gone and nobody is allowed to enrich uranium, then nobody can get their hands on a nuclear bomb.  Look it won't be easy ... but then neither is nukes going off and fighting wars to prevent them from going off.

... Your knee-jerk (sic) response unconceals the fact that you didn't bother to read the article!  As a secondary consideration do you also want to plunge the world into darkness? Europe, unlike the US has been investing heavily in nuclear power for a long time.

Again with writing untrue sentences about me ... is that really necessary?

Anyway you dont't need to plunge the world into darkness.  You could use the existing plants or retrofit them to burn up the existing nuclear materials.  That should help us untill the recyclable alternatives start comming on-line.

Seth says

M 2008-06-15 09:21:35 10284

M 2008-06-12 11:50:07 10284

As far as banning all nukes, it's as simple as banning all guns.  Try banning all guns in your neighborhood & I suspect that the only people who will have guns are the criminals. In particular, banning all nukes will suddenly make a critical mass of nuclear material & bombs available for dis-assembly & the black market. Not everyone in Iran desires death & martyrdom over life. If they did, I would suggest giving it to them first.  The fact that they all don't gives leverage for alternatives. The fact that we do have a nuclear deterrent also makes alternatives possible.

YEP, ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE NUKES IF WE GET RID OF OURS!

You old addage does not work here because guns are low tech, but enriching uranium is very high tech.  Once all the bombs are gone and nobody is allowed to enrich uranium, then nobody can get their hands on a nuclear bomb.  Look it won't be easy ... but then neither is nukes going off and fighting wars to prevent them from going off.

Mark de LA says

source: ...

You old addage does not work here because guns are low tech, but enriching uranium is very high tech.  Once all the bombs are gone and nobody is allowed to enrich uranium, then nobody can get their hands on a nuclear bomb.  Look it won't be easy ... but then neither is nukes going off and fighting wars to prevent them from going off.

... Your knee-jerk (sic) response unconceals the fact that you didn't bother to read the article!  As a secondary consideration do you also want to plunge the world into darkness? Europe, unlike the US has been investing heavily in nuclear power for a long time.

Mark de LA says

seth 2008-06-15 10:43:26 10284

M 2008-06-15 10:36:25 10284

Which one's untrue?

All of the sentences where I am the subject are either strickly untrue or total distortions of the truth.  I don't know if you noticed, but i do try to write sentences that are true.  One way i do that is not to write about your intentions, feelings, beliefs ... rather i write about my own, which i can vouch for.  Or write about known and documented events of history. 

You must be objecting to one of 2 sentences: (let's see if they are true):

M: ...
Your knee-jerk (sic) response unconceals the fact that you didn't bother to read the article!

... Did you in fact read the whole article before you responded with your get rid of the nukes comment? If, not it was knee-jerk. If so then . (scout's honor)

 

M: ...
As a secondary consideration do you also want to plunge the world into darkness?

... this comment is within editorial limits. It points to the consequence of your "nobody is allowed to enrich uranium" silliness. Since there are a lot of nuclear power plants in the world that use less than weapons grade nuclear material people will still need to process uranium to keep them going. We can't just turn nuclear bomb material into power plant material. Your pie in the sky suggestion has as much illative force as Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along!". You still ignore the fact that terrorists will have a bomb & don't play by the rules of civilized people. That is much like criminals who have guns but don't & won't care about laws requiring registration.

Mark de LA says

seth 2008-06-16 08:47:26 10284

In summary:

• 120 trillion $ : refine nuclear materials
• 300 trillion $ : clean up after the nukes go off
• Never having refined then in the first place,  PRICELES

Had there not been a premature ejaculation leaving Iraq during the first gulf war then the 2nd one would not have been needed at all!

With Democrats in charge I suspect there will be  another premature ejaculation!

Mark de LA says

seth 2008-06-18 10:29:11 10284

source: M above
Had there not been a premature ejaculation leaving Iraq during the first gulf war then the 2nd one would not have been needed at all!

Well there were a lot of people, myself included, who were surprised that the 1st Bush did not polish off Sadam.  In retrospect, some of us now see the wisdom of Bush senior's reluctance to create a power vacuum in Iraq.  Now in vein we search for a power there to balance our real enemy in the region which is the Iranian Mullahs.  Unfortunately no power is emerging and we must substitute our own.  Hence McCain's 100 years war is what we actually face in the middle east.  Or withdraw and let the region find it's own balance. 

Nope! We were afraid of our own power & what the world would say if we finished them off! There is nothing like victory that gives a country the power to determine how democracy & freedom gets implemented.  King George found that out. The emperor Hirohito found it out. Saddam Hussein found it out. The Kaiser found it out as did Hitler who committed suicide!  And ... Osama rightly calculated that Bill Clinton was more interested in having his cock sucked than protecting this country & Osama & his organization miscalculated that Bush would do the same! too bad! He (Osama) is hiding in a cave somewhere; hopefully about to have a Predator end his reveries of the glory days of the twin towers.