Your not for Peace your for defeat. I'm not going ot bother taking the time to debate your every argument becaues all it would do is fire me up. You are for losing and thats all your for. If you cared about death you would be for putting more troops in to stop the bombings, you would have been happy Saddam was hanged. SO stop lying to everyone about how your against death. Your for US Defeat and nothing more!
If I am simply for United States Defeat, how come United For Peace and Justice, CODEPINK Women for Peace, Veterans for Peace, and September 11th Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow are ALL against escalation of troops? Explain how every National Peace Organization is ALSO against escalation? Even a lot of Iraqi War Veterans who will be putting out commericials shortly about how if you support the escalation you don't support the troops?
Honestly, reply. I'd like to understand how you think I can simple be "for losing?" Peace advocacy is not just about bombing. Peace is about a lot more too. And if you've never done any reading on peace istead of just the military, I don't even want to have this conversation with you since I won't persuade you and I don't feel like taking the time to explain all that.
Why do you insist on making comments into a personal war? Because you haven't taken many political science courses and many more courses on "peace" or whatever does not give me the right to insult you about what you think peace is or what war is or anything else
( ... )
Peace is kept through military force. Plain and simple and if you can't handle that move to France where soon they will be an islamic state because appeasing and surrendering makes the aggressor stronger.
"Peace" doesn't not mean "appeas[ement] and "surrender." And peace does not, necessarily, need to be kept by force.
Look at Martin Luther King Jr; during the civil rights movement, his house was bombed one evening while he was out when his wife was home and she nearly died. MLK's followered nearly stormed the police and attacked them, however, they did not. Luther kept the peace and was able to move forward with the civil right movement by following a policy of non-violence and after speaking to the crowd, they were calmed and went home without any one being hurt because of what happened to him. And no, this wasn't a small group either; it was quite large. The entire civil right movement he preached followed non-violence and he's become one of the best known people of the age and his policies are now in effect in our nation.
Martin Luther King was an idiot. He was an advocate for black rights and look what that race has done with it. NOTHING. AS matter of fact blacks are responsible for more death in this country then any other race. So don't bring him up until his ideas have come to fruitian. They haven't and won't.
Ghandi is another retard. If the British were smarter they would have just let him die on one of his fasts. And his followers were complete dumbasses walking up in line to get a beat down over salt. If you know your going to get hurt for doing something and you do it anyawys with no way to protect yourself and not protecting anyone else physically then you deserve every bit of a beating you recieve simply for be able to procreate and spread your tainted genes.
People like that need to be killed. Get it through your head that humans are animals and we like violence. It will always be a part of who we are.
I was not making this into a personal war. I said nothing about peter in particular but asked him to explain why. I wasn't trying to attck him and I wasn't going to say "stop protecting your boyfriend." I was just make the point that if he feels i am simply for "defeat" that it needs to be expanded upon since many peace organizations also agree with my view
( ... )
He "attacked" opinions that you have, that is not a personal attack, the pesonal attack I was referring to was the one where you pretty much refused to talk with him about this since he hasn't studied peace like you have. He made many valid points in his argument to contradict your many valid points. The whole point of discussing something like this is not to convince someone that your views are right, but to help them to understand why you feel the way you do so they can think about why they think the way they do.
While you may have many organizations that share in your belief, there are also organizations that share other people's beliefs. Simply because you can name off 3 or 4 does not make you any more right or wrong than someone else. If you took the time to explain things, you might make more of a difference than if you shoot someone down because they simply have a different background of knowledge than you.
it's not that i didn't want to talk to him because he hadn't studied peace. there's a lot more to "peace" than simply surface stuff and it would take me a very long time to explain the reasoning behind a lot of these opinions if you don't have some background with some of the basic ideals of non-violence. the reason i brought up was because "I don't feel like taking the time to explain all that" when i'm short on time as it is in my life. it's not an attack on him, it's (as you said i should do when i don't have the time) an acknolegdement of the fact that i don't have the time to explain that background if you'd never heard any of the basics before. if he wants to continue it else where, he can ask to. but this conversation on livejournal isn't going to give me enough time to explain it without giving up too much of my time. i can go through and explain ghandi's ideas of non-violence, i can go through all that... but honestly, i don't have the time to do this this week and i have the feeling peter won't take from it what the basic
( ... )
Reply
Honestly, reply. I'd like to understand how you think I can simple be "for losing?" Peace advocacy is not just about bombing. Peace is about a lot more too. And if you've never done any reading on peace istead of just the military, I don't even want to have this conversation with you since I won't persuade you and I don't feel like taking the time to explain all that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Look at Martin Luther King Jr; during the civil rights movement, his house was bombed one evening while he was out when his wife was home and she nearly died. MLK's followered nearly stormed the police and attacked them, however, they did not. Luther kept the peace and was able to move forward with the civil right movement by following a policy of non-violence and after speaking to the crowd, they were calmed and went home without any one being hurt because of what happened to him. And no, this wasn't a small group either; it was quite large. The entire civil right movement he preached followed non-violence and he's become one of the best known people of the age and his policies are now in effect in our nation.
More details if you ask.
Reply
Ghandi is another retard. If the British were smarter they would have just let him die on one of his fasts. And his followers were complete dumbasses walking up in line to get a beat down over salt. If you know your going to get hurt for doing something and you do it anyawys with no way to protect yourself and not protecting anyone else physically then you deserve every bit of a beating you recieve simply for be able to procreate and spread your tainted genes.
People like that need to be killed. Get it through your head that humans are animals and we like violence. It will always be a part of who we are.
Reply
Reply
While you may have many organizations that share in your belief, there are also organizations that share other people's beliefs. Simply because you can name off 3 or 4 does not make you any more right or wrong than someone else. If you took the time to explain things, you might make more of a difference than if you shoot someone down because they simply have a different background of knowledge than you.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment