"Peace" 3

Jake:

"Absence of conflict is not something that can be achieved because it is not a positive goal." -- And killing people is a positive goal? Removing diverse people and culture from the face of the earth seems negative."By becoming homogenous with those that hate us, we would remove conflict because we would be the same as them. (However, this is more or less the peace of the slave.)"-- Wouldn't you think that the majority of people in Iraq feel that America is forcing their beliefs on them? But I guess that doesn't matter when you're not the slave in the equation, so long as you're the master, right?

Me:

Jake, I am amazed at how you could take 6 full length posts, find two things that you don't like (because you don't understand, not because I am wrong) and act like you totally disproved me. When I said a "positive goal", what I meant was that it was something, as opposed to nothing. In this context, positive doesn't mean good so much as not negative, I can't make it any simpler than that.

As for "removing diverse people and culture" statement, that is typical liberal double speak. We aren't removing them, unless you count terrorists. What we are doing doesn't even bear a marked similarity to genocide. Don't be ridiculous. That is a seriously stupid thing to say. Oh, and diversity for diversity sake is idiotic. You tell me why diversity is a good thing.

Lastly, we aren't forcing our beliefs on anyone. We are forcing a government on them. Not quite the same thing. We don't have re-education camps and people denying Islam, do we? And the government is better for them anyway. So keep the melodrama at a minimum. It blows me away sometimes how liberals can just completely parrot overblown and absurdly exaggerated rhetoric. Do you have anything worthwhile or reasonable to say?

Jake:

I understood the context of negative vs. positive goals, but to achieve the absence of "terrorists", for example, is negative, isn't it? You want the absence of certain people; we want the absence of war. And I don't see what's so stupid about referring to the idea of killing people as removing them. It's not like terrorists are the only people being killed in Iraq. There are civilian casualties, too.The only thing I've been trying to say, as evidenced in the group title, is give peace a chance. I'm not the one butting in on a group dedicated to non-violence to promote killing people and forcing our "government" on them.

Also, if your six full-length posts provided anything that proved that killing human beings is a good thing simply based on where they live or the system of government they've been brought up with, I would have mentioned it, but you talk pseudo-intellectually about things that are hardly related to the simple thing we're saying: give peace a chance. I don't see why that statement is so controversial to you.

Tom:

Jake, you obviously haven't really read, or thought, about a single thing I have written. Instead, you are simply repeating your previous position as though I haven't said anything. That means you are either an idiot or a drone. However, I will humor you, and answer your hair-brained objections.

"...that proved that killing human beings is a good thing simply based on where they live or the system of government they've been brought up with..." Well, it isn't that simple, is it? Liberals always over-simplify a situation that they don't like. I will put it to you this way, though. Killing human beings based on where they live or their system of government is a good thing if those things contribute to their desire for our total annihilation.

You may say that I am pseudo-intellectual (and I am not sure exactly how that is either true or relevant) but at least I am not a simpleton. "Give peace a chance" isn't a national security strategy, or a way of dealing with the world, it is a slogan. One which may encapsulate your feelings on the matter, but it isn't proven or coherent, and is completely without subtext. I mean, we have given peace a chance, right? For example, right after we left Vietnam. Or, more recently, when the Marine Barracks was bombed. We didn't go to war then, and, surprise, surprise, terrorists acts continued to happen. So, "peace" (as you term it) had its chance, and failed. In the meantime, cowardly running away from the situation, and acting like everything is ok as our heritage and civilization falls apart around us, is what makes the statement "so controversial" to me.

Civilian causalities aren't the objective, and therefore are not part of the discussion. Less would be killed in the long run if they cooperated and took control of their own country. However, be that as it may, the war isn't against civilians, so you can't act as though we are some evil giant smashing the innocent. We are just people, and mistakes happen.

As for your complaint about the "forcing" of our government on them, perhaps you should observe that the Iraqi government is RUN BY IRAQIS! If they didn't want anything to do with it 80% wouldn't vote in the elections; they just couldn't have it before because Saddam was a brutal dictator. So, that's enough of that.

The reason I am here is to help you realize the silliness of your collective ways, and to hone my rhetorical and debate skills by kicking your behinds in every argument I get into. Does that answer your question?