Disgust

Is this what you mean JL-

.

Wasn't Japan trying to enlarge their territory too?

Spendius, one might think of institutionalized rivalries such as competitive sports as forms of warplay and our territorial identifications and attachments to "hometown", as a kind of proto-nationalism. Nation has to do with a cultural-linguistic population, a People", i.e., the Navaho Nation. In contrast to such an informal and cultural entity, a State is a formal legal entity. The leaders of both nations and states, as well as the combined modern nation-states exploit our competitive impulses (enhanced and structured by sports) and nationalism (identification and attachment with national territory) to go to war. This is done more often than not to serve the interests of some segment of society, rarely those of the entire society. And in modern wars the elite use the power of political offices created by the State organization to send those not of their segment (I'm trying not to say "class") to do most of the actual fighting and dying. It is clearly disgusting.

There's plusses and minuses JL.Ask the survivors.

Mapleleaf, to say politicians new favorite phrase is to overdo it, but I have heard several central politicians, both norwegian and other nationalities, state that the way USA is acting in the world today is a way to guarantee full blown world war in the near future. The idea is not new, but it is spreading. I for one think that there is an ounce of truth in it.

Haven't we all learned that violence breeds violence?

I know that it sounds like a cliche, but can a person honestly call a phrase a cliche before he has understood it's meaning?

Not only is "violence breeds violence" a cliche but it is also understood providing the word "breeds" has its scope stretched in the cliched manner it so often is.It is also a cliche to say rhetorically "Haven't we all learned that violence breeds violence?"It is a cliche popular with certain schools of thought.
Violence is often necessary to prevent even more violence as the police forces of most countries know.Who knows what violence would ensue if America withdrew from its role as arbitrators between lesser warring nations.Or if the police withdrew as arbitrators between members of the public.
What is true is that nations,which are objects and as such amoral,only understand superior violence or threat of it.One could hardly expect the rulers of N.Korea or Iran to abandon their search for nuclear capabilities because the writer of the above had sterny wagged his finger at them with the admonition he gives.They would laugh.If such a method of bringing peace to the world had any effect defence spending could be seen as a waste of resources and the security council at the UN could be opened up to include smaller nations such as Figi or Norway.
The gist of the post previous is that human nature should be changed to bring us more in line with that of koala bears or pigeons which would have the one merit of reducing dangerous driving and folk plugging electric guitars into the electricity grid.
How does Cyracuz see the state of the Balkans today without the violent intervention by America and some of their allies.Fried to a crisp or carbonised.

The first sentence of Cyracuz's post is meaningless and in posting it the author is simply hoping that his readers are not astute enough to see that.Even an electrical retailer wouldn't underestimate the customers enough to try a "garuantee" like that one on them.

What I see here is Cyracuz expressing an attitude toward violence, i.e., that it tends to breed violence and should be used only as a last resort (e.g., the war against Hitler). The "threat" of violence might deter violence in some cases, but if it is not merely a chip in a diplomatic approach to conflict, it will eventually lead to woe.

The threat of nuclear and biological weapons on the end of ICBMs certainly seems to have concentrated a large number of minds onto the search for peace and co-operation.

Most creatures on this planet appear to acknowledge the need to survive.

Survival in the occidental world especially now has added bonus factors that we have no intention of doing without. It is quite nauseating to even consider being here without all of our luxuries.

Consequently we demand leaders of the calibre required to obtain our control of life's little luxuries.

Added to that we are blessed with the condition of Janus and spout against the leaders on a sunny Sunday afternoon of course. Or even decline to do our stint at National Service.

Mathos, much truth in what you say. We proclaim our desire for peace and fairness, yet permit our "leaders" to attack and exploit weaker nations (with the help of their puppet leaders) so that we can enjoy the luxuries of cheap products and resources.

Hehe... differences emerge. Thank you JL, for reading to understand what I'm trying to say, as opposed to spendius, who's reading to disarm.

I said that you're not allowed to call it a cliche until you have understood it's meaning. Don't you understand that if you kill someone's brother you will start a blood feud? That is, unless the brother of the one you killed didn't understand the "cliche", in wich case you'd be lucky.

They tear down several buildings and kill thousands of people. Horrible, I hasten to agree. But what about the answer? A rain of bombs? How does this make anyone see the error of their ways?

I understand what Cyracuz is saying.Loud and clear.
He seeks to be the little Mr Virtue while others do the dirty work on which he depends.He relies on an audience of the intellectually challenged.He presumably would have terrorists and gansters running the show because that is what you would get if you took his strictures into the legislature and passed them.

Naturally I try to disarm such nonsense.He has the twee safety net of saying he would have stood up to Hitler without ever for one moment risking being put to the test on it.But in claiming that,specious as it is,he loses his case because non-violence is an absolute principle as Jesus taught.It isn't flavour of the month.

Cyracuz also places a bet with all our lives.He hasn't the faintest idea what the outcome of the policies he offers will be.Neither have I,of course,because such things are in the hands of our elected representitives and the experts who advise them and I am content with that.

Basically he is simply discontented and he chooses this particular outlet for it in the hope that a bunch of softies will agree with him.

He answers none of the points I raised and contents himself with bluster.

They will be made to see the error of their ways.A lot of them already have done.The few that refuse to do so will be mopped up in due course and we owe debts to those who have the task which we cannot hope to repay.Undermining their morale,which is what Cyracuz seeks to do,would be classed as treason if the circumstances became much more difficult than at present.

His method of getting attention is a mite too easy for my liking.Try stretching yourself Cyr or do you like the home comforts too much.

Oh-and kindly knock off flattering other posters in the hope they will have their heads turned your way.That only works with dim people.The more you insult me the better I like it.

Spendius, of course you like to be offended; it justfies your (expressions of) anger. Pacificism can be held absolutely, of course (we see that in Ghandi and Aldous Huxley), but most often it merely refers to the use of violence as an "absolutely" LAST resort. People like you--or at least as I read you--look for reasons or excuses to agress against others. It reflects an underlying personality system which is, I suspect, why you are so hostile toward Cyracuz, not only for what he espouses but for what he is.
What I say about you regarding Cryacuz is probably true of me regarding you.
Dim JL

It reflects the facts of life old boy I'm afraid.And you should be grateful that it does unless you live in a cave on seaweed.It has nothing to do with me.

And that "absolutely" LAST resort.Might be okay with the ladies but on a philosophy thread-goodness gracious.A pacifist can have his own definition of it.It means he's a pacifist when he wants to be.It's a cheapskate pose.Philosophy deals in extremes.

You do know don't you that he crashed a car somebody loaned him.I'm not saying he was driving aggressively but it is usually the case.

I have all the governments of the world on my side.
Including yours and his.Do you vote?I don't.

Who do you think you are talking to?

And answer the argument instead of dreaming up personal aspersions.

I grant that I do not know you in anything like your entirety. I am only responding,with my personality, to the personality suggested by what you have said. Your reference to pacificism being o.k. "with the ladies" suggests more than you realize: perhaps a pseudo-machismo and sexism--can't say for sure, hope I'm wrong.
But who says that "philosophy deals in extremes"?Sometimes some philosophers do, but you should continue your reading. And if you have all the governments of the world on your side, as you say, I rest my case.

You are wrong.

I respect pacifists.But not phonies.

Well, my goodness. Is there any room for a lady in here? Or should I just sit quietly and read.

Spendius, can you name a pacificist you respect and state what you respect about his/her pacificism?
And on what grounds do you consider Cyracuz' (or my--probably milder form of) pacificism "phony"?

Letty, perhaps you should sit and KNIT. How about THAT, Spendius?

Let's see, JL. Was that a question to me or some other pacifist?