All we are saying...

1. K
   October 15th, 2007 at 10:01 pm

   Get rid of all those stupid religious things, we may actually some peace on our planet.
   Who do you think start all the wars and keep 'em goin'?

2. Justin
   October 15th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

   Yes, because in our hearts we are peace loving cuddley bears corrupted by those religions of hate like Buddhism!

3. Carruthers
   October 16th, 2007 at 12:07 am

   Thanks Adam, but I think we should give war a chance. If people didn't give war a chance once in a while when required then the actual war-mongers of history would rule over us like tyrants. The only example of a peacenick prevailing I know of in history is Gandhi - and he non-violently prevailed because he wasn't up against a Stalin, or Hitler or Saddam. He protested against an advanced civilized pluralistic democracy, not a demi-god tyrant. Try doing the hunger strike, non-violent thing in Cuba, or in North Korea, or Iran and see how far it gets you. Our warriors do their job to keep the idea of freedom of choice - of government - of religion - of speech - alive for us. The peace you are privileged to enjoy now is a luxury when all of human history is taken into consideration, and it wasn't brought about by diplomats or non-violent action but by warriors standing up to war-mongers and tyrants.

4. Ali S.
   October 16th, 2007 at 1:22 am

   Hey Adam,

   I was wondering where did you get that picture for the article? It'd make a great desktop wallpaper for sure.

5. Sid Morrison
   October 16th, 2007 at 7:30 am

   Really good insight by Carruthers, especially concerning Gandhi's successes in India against U.K. rule and how well that would have played out in other venues.

6. Lasse
   October 16th, 2007 at 9:23 am

   Yeah, lets have some more wars. I creates jobs too. I feel my inner warrior waking up.

7. Adam Stanhope
   October 16th, 2007 at 9:36 am

   Carruthers: Lech Walesa & Solidarity?

8. Adam Stanhope
   October 16th, 2007 at 9:37 am

   P.S. Thank god we won a decisive victory in Vietnam. The shit REALLY would have hit the fan if we'd lost!

9. Carruthers
   October 16th, 2007 at 11:50 am

   You lefties love to play the Vietnam card, thinking it trumps everything. Kennedy was the first to send troops, followed by Johnson who sent hundreds of thousands more. Nixon got the U.S. out of Vietnam. Having said that though, the war against communism was a just one and was fought over decades in myriad different ways, some with a great loss of life like Vietnam. Also, if you know anything about actual warfare, which I suspect you don't as it's too awful to think about, you'll know the "infamous" Tet offensive was a decisive victory against the Viet Cong instead of the defeat that Cronkite reported. The vietnam war might have had a different outcome if the peacenicks weren't on the side of the communist north.

10. Adam Stanhope
    October 16th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    Carruthers, dearest - the Vietnam card was played because this post happens to be about Vietnam. When corresponding with me, please try extra hard to keep up with the rest of the class, OK?

    And please leave your wingnut revisionist history lessons at home. Every adult in the world knows the score in Vietnam and - you embarrass yourself by bringing these fantasy stories into play.

    After 20 years of Franco-American alliance fighting in Vietnam and millions of casualties on all sides, it comes down to "peacenicks on the side of the communist north." If only those darn peaceniks hadn't been on the side of the communist north, THEN we would have whipped 'em!

    The mistake you armchair warriors make every time here is confusing is confusing "opposition to war" with "taking the side of the communist north." If you can't see the difference then there is no hope for you. Note that this is a mistake that many of you have been making for several years with regards to the Iraq situation as well. No, Carruthers, the 70%+ of Americans (and 90%+ of the world population) that wants us out of Iraq aren't on al Qaeda's side... We're on the side of humanity that understands that "war is not glorious - war is bad." Imagine that.

    I'll add a little bit of extra complexity to that, if you'll allow me... That is that war always produces unforeseen consequences, over which some all parties involved may completely lose control.

    I don't remember Bush, Cheney, et al raising the spectre of creating an Iran-aligned government in Baghdad fighting a proxy war against al-Qaeda and the Sunni establishment through armed Shiite militias at a cost of $500BB+. Do you?

11. Sid Morrison
    October 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    Blah blah blah... The problem that the Western powers get into with running a war is not vanquishing the enemy -- that part is easy. The tough part comes afterward when we hang around to do "nation building" on the ground. As soon as that happens, guerilla groups start getting organized and casualities start piling up.

    So why do this in the first place? Frankly, it's because we have a moral regard for the innocent victims in war and we try (despite periods of suffering) to leave the country better for the long run. Unfortunately, these humanitarian goals (even just delivering food in Somalia) are not consistent with efficient warfare, or minimizing costs of the conflict in terms of dollars or the lives of our brave armed forces.

    Ultimately, we need to rethink how things are done. If the war is entered in the interests of our nation, it should be exercised in such a manner consistent with the interests of our nation, and everything else needs to be de-ranked. This means eliminating the post-war nation building. Let the Iraqis (or whomever) figure that out. If they do it on their own (like we did after the American Revolution) they will value freedom a lot more. If the "wrong people" get in power there, yet aren't a threat to us, that is unfortunate, but not our problem. If they are a threat though, we just need to take them out again and let them start over.

    Qadafi (pick a spelling, any spelling) is not our 1st choice as a leader in Lybia, but he has (apparently) stopped sponsoring terrorism that threatens us, so we leave him be. Saddam was treated this way after the '91 Gulf War; he would have been left alone if he minded himself and abided by his prior surrender agreement. He didn't and brought today's result upon himself and his nation.

12. Adam Stanhope
    October 17th, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    Blah blah blah. Ah yes, if only Western Civilization hadn't evolved beyond "vanquishing" other peoples - THEN the world would truly be a perfect place.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT