WWIII??

.

kayflash-

you have some serious issues...

1. things are not as black and white as you make them out to be. you obviously can't see the difference between a military carrying out strikes against strategic targets and a hijacked airplane hitting an office building.

2. you are not a reasonable person. you are not capable of having a discussion without flying off the handle.

3. you seem to hate the United States. that is obvious in every post you've made on this topic since sept 11th. (including insensitive posts you made that very day)

4. you have unrealistic ideas about the world you live in.

in my opinion, you are obnoxious and idealistic to the point of hard-headed stupidity.

mattboy & axiom-

it's the return of the militant pacifist canadians! hold on to your touques, eh!

And don't you ever try to tell me to mature when you are the one who believes in war and would much rather take on the group mentality then to step away and be an individual. I guess conformity is the easy way out, typical for you rednecks, who haven't grown out of the eye for an eye mentality

Statements like this not only show me, but they prove to the rest of the people reading this thread that you are a child. You have yet to grow up.

Why?

Because you can't get into a discussion about something you feel strongly about without resulting to insults about a person's heritage. You need to learn some tact in your speach. Perhaps learning to speak more eloquently about your ideas and opinions will help you convey them over.

Being as you were born in 1982, That would make you almost 20 years old. You are a little old to result to insults because you have no leg to stand on in your argument.

Now, if you want to continue to insult my heritage, family and anything else, do so. Just remember, you are proving yourself an even bigger child each time you do.

I am pretty much done with this argument. You have lost just because you fell back on your ability to use words like "redneck".

I find it odd that a person who beleives so strongly that conflict is bad and war is wrong and that people should sit down and talk out their problems relies on insults and anger when all of the other options have been expended.

Congratulations. You have proven my point for me.

Ok kids, lets play nice.

I'm letting this play out, but be somewhat civilized. I'm staying out of it, but am reading.

Kayflash
We've been through this before. You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. If you want to have your thoughts respected than respect other peoples as well. "Personally" I could not disagree with you more. But you have a right to express your thoughts. See, that's the beauty of a free country. Oh, wait. We are free because we fought for our freedom. Just something for you to knaw on a bit...

Kay, Kay, Kay.... I find it amusing that a pacifist posts a message and just sits back waiting to pounce on the first victim who dares post a reply.

That said, I'm jumping in! First, I must go on record as saying that I agree with the National Council of Catholic Bishops (I'll post the name of the book, if anyone wants to know), that people who choose a non-violent activist approach to promoting peace should be held in highest regards. Provided two things: 1) they actually do something (hence activist) to bring about peace, and 2) they do not in anyway injure or hamper the efforts of others to bring about peace (wether through military or other means).

But the bishops also (and no, I'm not Catholic--I just like their take on this) state that we (we as Christains or Citizens) have a moral imperative to protect the innocent. They cite St. Augustine in his writings about the need to protect those who cannot protect themselves from aggression. Countries have an obligation to protect their citizens. The criteria to determine whether or not the moral requirements for a "Just War" is met is specifically outlined in their statement of jus ad bellum. According to my usually pacifistic professor, and the rest of the class (in a LOOOONNG drawn out discussion) this current situation meets and exceeds the criteria calling for a response of FORCE, to stop the terrorism.

So...my conclusion: If you don't agree with war, debate it in the proper forums ahead of time. If you don't want to fight yourself, do something else valuable to help bring about peace. But once the debating is over and action is at hand--don't get in the way of those who are taking responsibility of protecting the innocent-- support your government and the soldiers who do what you can't or won't do yourself.

This thread is ridiculous. Acting out in self-defense will not cause WWIII. Hell, all the major powers of the world are with the US on this matter. The only people raising a stink are those in those contries in the Middle East ravaged by their own in-fighting and bad governments that further their violent ways.

We took charge of Japan for an even lesser (yet still huge) error in judgement, and to think people assume the US would sit back and let thousands be killed without putting an end to this threat is silliness. This tragedy was not part of a larger war like Pearl Harbor, either.

mrbogus,
I understand your view that this is not WWIII, I agree. However, I think using our actions during WWII as an example in this situation is irrelevant. I am a US citizen, only 29, however, I strongly disagree with the excessive use of force by the US against Japan. It may have been the major contributing factor for ending the war in the Pacific, but look at the cost. As a result of two nuclear detonations, 340,000 people were killed directly by the blasts and as a result of long term illness from radiation, not to mention the subsequent suicides of several crew members of the Enola Gay. This is one the most horrendous act of war ever commited in modern times and a terrible way to "take charge" of a country. I consider myself a patriot, but I hope the US, and believe the US has, learned from that mistake.

mrbogus, forgive me if I have taken you out of context. I agree with force in our current situation, just not that type of force.

Thanks,
Justin

PS- I think I speak for all of us in thanking Pank for letting us discuss such sensitive matters on a PS forum...of all places.

But Grassfolk,

By using the nuclear bomb, we possibly saved millions of lives. I know it sounds bad to say it, but 300,000+ people dieing so that 2 million dont have to is not necessarily a bad thing.

It's horrible that the united states used such a weapon. Unfortunatly, President Truman felt he had no other options. He was tired of America's young men going off to fight the war in the Pacific and never coming back. Beleive it or not, he was tired of killing the Japanese as well.

You just have to remember that in any time of war, our governments standpoint is always going to be sacrafice a little to save many. They won't intentionally kill civilians. But accidents happen.