I quit driving in 2003 and quit working, in 2003 when the Americans attacked Iraq. But they kept doing it. I notice, when people try to stop burning oil coal and gas, it just leaves more supply for the people without a conscience. They will proliferate. It's darwinian. Unless we stop them. What does that look like? Armed guards to keep all the oil wells shut? Reminds me of the drug wars. Its hopeless.
Thank you Meshiea. I've heard the same challenge many times. If forced to fight, then most people fight. My point is, given the alternative (fleeing to the refugee camps, etc) most people take it. You seem predisposed to violence, or at least, insufficiently aware of the many options of avoidance--especially with adequate forsight and recognition of emerging threats (requiring intelligence), and strength of will to migrate and leave ones tribe behind.
Little Richardjohn, I submit you err on at least two points.
The easier is in your citing a single 'objective' or 'endgame', in a decision process (the warmaking decision) well known to encompass multiple actors with different goals.
The more subtle error is your causality theory for future nuclear war. In your model, the critical factor is controlling nuclear proliferation; in my model, the critical factor is building moderate and enlightened regimes disinclined to use them.
Within my theory of preventing future wars and keeping us all safe, the US military is counterproductive and our only really effective option is things like spreading education, access to Internet and media, reducing hunger and disease-- just being good friends to the people. By the time you have a war (as in Libya today), you're only harvesting the results of decades of neglect of better options.
In fact it was unnecessary for the population to depose Gadhafi, and unwise to stand up to his gunfire. Wiser to let the caesar stand, let the education and awareness grow another few years. I don't support violent civil war over slices of the economic pie. You're better to bide your time, just as we are doing in the U.S.
The support for this war appears widespread, if the media are to be believed. Many of my regular correspondents on email lists and Facebook however, understand the truth: it will turn out badly. Juan, there is a good reason for pacifism --you might regard it as pragmatic, just as you did your third subtype "antiwar pragmatists". Pacifism is the logical approach for people who understand that physical things are unimportant beyond the necessities of life. It is true that one can experience pleasure or unpleasure by wealth or other physical configurations around us, but ironically, it is far easier to become happy by reconfiguring one's mind by reducing its desires. I do confess to needing food and shelter etc. -- I'm not talking about that, and, Libyans were not starving. They're engaged in a struggle over nothing. I don't know why you're glad that one side or another is 'winning' nothing. If I were Libyan I would stay away from the fight.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
I quit driving in 2003 and quit working, in 2003 when the Americans attacked Iraq. But they kept doing it. I notice, when people try to stop burning oil coal and gas, it just leaves more supply for the people without a conscience. They will proliferate. It's darwinian. Unless we stop them. What does that look like? Armed guards to keep all the oil wells shut? Reminds me of the drug wars. Its hopeless.
Thank you Meshiea. I've heard the same challenge many times. If forced to fight, then most people fight. My point is, given the alternative (fleeing to the refugee camps, etc) most people take it. You seem predisposed to violence, or at least, insufficiently aware of the many options of avoidance--especially with adequate forsight and recognition of emerging threats (requiring intelligence), and strength of will to migrate and leave ones tribe behind.
Little Richardjohn, I submit you err on at least two points.
The easier is in your citing a single 'objective' or 'endgame', in a decision process (the warmaking decision) well known to encompass multiple actors with different goals.
The more subtle error is your causality theory for future nuclear war. In your model, the critical factor is controlling nuclear proliferation; in my model, the critical factor is building moderate and enlightened regimes disinclined to use them.
Within my theory of preventing future wars and keeping us all safe, the US military is counterproductive and our only really effective option is things like spreading education, access to Internet and media, reducing hunger and disease-- just being good friends to the people. By the time you have a war (as in Libya today), you're only harvesting the results of decades of neglect of better options.
In fact it was unnecessary for the population to depose Gadhafi, and unwise to stand up to his gunfire. Wiser to let the caesar stand, let the education and awareness grow another few years. I don't support violent civil war over slices of the economic pie. You're better to bide your time, just as we are doing in the U.S.
The support for this war appears widespread, if the media are to be believed. Many of my regular correspondents on email lists and Facebook however, understand the truth: it will turn out badly. Juan, there is a good reason for pacifism --you might regard it as pragmatic, just as you did your third subtype "antiwar pragmatists". Pacifism is the logical approach for people who understand that physical things are unimportant beyond the necessities of life. It is true that one can experience pleasure or unpleasure by wealth or other physical configurations around us, but ironically, it is far easier to become happy by reconfiguring one's mind by reducing its desires. I do confess to needing food and shelter etc. -- I'm not talking about that, and, Libyans were not starving. They're engaged in a struggle over nothing. I don't know why you're glad that one side or another is 'winning' nothing. If I were Libyan I would stay away from the fight.