Topic awaiting preservation: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity

just thought I'd share this grate quote (got it from a friend's away message dunno if its copyrighted, and honestly dont care)


Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity

This is where it came from..
http://members.shaw.ca/cbck/peace.jpg

It's cute until you think about it.

Lovely pic, NoJive... thanks : )

Bugimus, what is it after you think about it? : )

It is true. In a way. But, here logic is flawed. She is taking two diffrent subjects and comparing them. We're bombing Iraq, partially, to get rid of an evil dictator. On the other hand, well...On the other hand...

Violence begats violence.

That has always been true.

However, the second part of the quote...uhhh, yeah. I guess, in a way, they are the same, in their impossibility...whatever.

Here's some interesting attests to the subject :

quote:

---

Two top United States Diplomats have resigned from their posts, saying they cannot support the Bush Administration's plans for war. In his resignation letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, John Brady Kiesling, a former U.S. diplomat based in Athens, Greece, said the Bush Administration was involved in, and I quote, "a systematic distortion of intelligence and a systematic manipulation of public opinion not seen since the days of Vietnam."


Kiesling dedicated 20 years of his life to diplomacy and civil debate. He sent his resignation letter to Secretary Powell on February 27. Friday, March 7, was his last day in the Foreign Service.


Another veteran Diplomat, John Brown, joined Kiesling just three days ago. Brown was a senior member of the Foreign Service who also served in the State Department for more than 20 years. He was stationed primarily in Eastern Europe and most recently in Moscow.


In Brown's letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, he said he agreed with John Brady Kiesling. Brown wrote, "The president's disregard for views in other nations borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy is giving birth to an anti-American century."

---

quote:

---

JBK: I'm kind of frightened by the missionary zeal that's going into this. The original American missionaries to the Middle East in the 19th century recognized that they would not be able to convert anyone from Islam to Christianity. So they settled for simply giving people a good education. And that was very useful. It played an enormous role in the economic and political development of the Middle East. Now we seem to think that we can go in and convert people, not necessarily to Christianity, but to a whole different Western ideology. It has not worked, it will not work. The idea that we first take care of Iraq, and then we will civilize Iran, and then we will civilize Syria and then we will civilize everybody else – it's insane. But, there are people who genuinely seem to believe it, and all I can think of is, they are hopeful for the Apocalypse.

---

quote:

---

JB: I just hope that my resignation will underscore the fact that I have extremely strong reservations about our policy, and to get back to the earlier question that Brady answered, a policy that really is based on arrogance, on the notion that we can recreate the world, recreate regions, first by using force. And I think force should be used at the very, very last moment ... if ever ... not to use force ... avoid using it as much as possible. So my concern at this point is really the believing that we, in a sense, are the masters of the universe. I think that's terribly dangerous and that's not of the American spirit.

---

More can be found here Dissenting Diplomats

Their views pretty much matches mine...at least, that's how I see it...


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-09-2003).]

I understand your concern, but I do not think it will come to what you fear.

The idea that our recent actions will make people hate us is utterly ridiculous because we are already hated. How many times must that be repeated before it sinks in? We are hated because of our ideals and our way of life, it is not because we act or do not act one way or the other in other countries.

Think about it. When we bombed christians to favor muslims in Kosovo, did that make the Islamic world love us? Not at all. When we bombed muslims in Afghanistan, did it make the Islamic world hate us more than they already did? Not at all.

This is about a struggle between idealogies and that is how we have to understand it or it's just not going to make any sense.


What about the rest of the world? Well, frankly there is a great rift between much of Europe and the United States. But again, it is firmly based in values. Europe, by and large, has moved to secularism. The US is still religious. (keep in mind I'm speaking very generally here)

We, in the US, actually still see the world in terms of right/wrong while Europe has moved from that to legal/illegal, strong/weak, rich/poor mindset. This divide also defines much of the Left/Right debate here in the US. Again, this is a general observation and by no means indicative of all thought on both continents.


asptamer, the reason I said that about the quote is because it's very catchy but it is simply incorrect and misleading. It assumes that "peace" is the natural state of human existence. It just isn't. Whether you take the Garden of Eden metaphorically, literally, or as fairy tale the one thing I can say is that it was the last time "peace" was the natural state. Since that time every era of peace has been bought and paid for with nothing less than a cauldron of blood, sweat, and tears. Consider that and let me know if you see it otherwise because I can see no alternatives in any version of history that I am aware of.

Bugimus, so you are saying that it is incorrect because it has the word "peace" in it?
I completely agree with your views about our 'natural state,' and these views do not go contrary to the quote. The way I see it is "fighting for peace" in this case is an oximoron because peace will not be achieved, especially by fighting - just like one cannot achieve virginity by having sex.

And most importantly, I liked it just because it highlights the contradiction of the statement "fighting for freedom" itself. I now recall one of the slogans depicted on my pro-war photograph (check the site) "War is the path to peace..." The only way to achieve peace by war is to wipe out the enemy completely - so there is noone left to complain or rebel. Also, I dont believe there will ever be peace on earth for as long as we differ in our cultures and most of all, Beliefs. To stop fighting we need to forget our differences which is pretty much impossible - judging from the general human condition...

There's too much greed and hatered in the world, and with "we hate them because they hate us" philosophy we (as species) wont get far...

I'm saying it's incorrect because the only way peace has ever been established has been through fighting. Simple as that. Do you agree?

You think "fighting for freedom" is wrong too? Can you please tell me how this country was founded? Didn't we fight war and as a result became a free nation? As a direct result of the Civil War didn't slavery become illegal? The point is that extremely good things have come from war and fighting.

I am still waiting for you to help me see a part of human history where peace and freedom have come from anything but the willingness to fight for them.

India's independence. Ghandi. He was not fighting, or u might say he was.. by not fighting.

and peace in US ? so we got our independence - then split south from north and fought a civil war (peace?). so it's been calm for a hundred years or so, but at what expense? Gov't is controlling/monitoring its subjects perhaps nearly as carefully as Stalin did. Only hear it's masked under the bill of rights. They yell freedom at you 10 times a day so you get used to media telling you how to think and how to dress, and u start thinking that that is real freedom.

But if Ghandi's peaceful protest was met by machine gun fire and a very large grave he would not have suceeded.


[This message has been edited by WarMage (edited 04-09-2003).]

ye but then they wouldnt be able to blame him for staring a riot, or a war.

I'm sorry Bugs, but there are quite a few things that are inaccurate in your post. First of all, both of those ex-diplomats have over 20 years of experience...you can turn it anyway you wish, but quite frankly, that's a hell of a lot of experience that you are 'throwing away'. Second, both men made descisions of concious...which should spark alarm bells in your head. But, as usual, you fail to see this. I'm at a loss, as to why. But then, I'm not you. I have also worked in intelligence, and much of what those two men are saying rings true...especially considering what I know, and have done. I, too, made a decision of concious, as I left the Military (and intelligence service).

Second, you seem to confuse freedom with peace. Quite frankly, I'm surprised at this. They are not the same, and are not even dependant on one another. Freedom is normally gained through resistance...not necessarily violence, but yes, resistance. Peace is a much more complicated beast...and has a lot more to do with the individual state (as anyone who has studied many eastern philosophies would know...or even western religion, for that matter). But I suppose that you are talking about Peace on a grander scale...in that event, I do point to Switzerland (and many cultures that have taken a long view of human history). How about the pygmies in Africa? In fact, there have been many examples in human history of peace without violence...you just need to look. It's not the same as total absence from strife...

Now, the part about hating the US...I really don't look at it as you do, I suppose. I see a lot of uninformed hate towards the west...yes, there is that. But many of the cultures that do hate the west, have good reason for this...they have often been at the mercy of our 'peaceful' cultures, after all.

But hate, and the willingness to act on that emotion, are two different things. This is a fine line, sometimes, and is really my (and both of those mens) point - it normally takes a catalyst to transfigure the hate into action...as the Gulf War did, spawning Al Quaida into an instrument of action against the US...so, too, will this conflict spawn consequences...you know this, deep inside, history is full of just such evidence. In what form it will take, is yet to be seen, but consequences will come out of this...some positive, some negative. I've already seen the reports of the new recruits for the Al Quaida network...I'm sure you have, too. And I'm absolutely sure, that Bin Laden (if he is alive) is cackling in glee over this. It will not surprise me, if the Al Quaida network becomes heavily involved in Iraq in the near future...but then, we will see. Time will tell. If history is a teacher, then we should learn from it.

9/11 is a good example of a catalyst...as was Pearl Harbor. So too, was the Alamo. All are examples of catalysts that Americans know well. You could even call the slaughter of Custer a catalyst, of a sorts. The Boston tea party is also a good example. And so is Kent State.

The point being, it is hard to actually see what a catalyst is, until it's too late...especially looking through the glasses of one culture into another. What for you and me would not seem to be one, to another from another culture, is one. And vice versa. So were the Japanese caught by surprise, because they had seriously underestimated the reaction to Pearl Harbor. I'm very sure the Mexicans did not think the Alamo would be one. So how does one try to predict these? Well, one needs people to actually immerse themselves into the 'foreign' culture, to understand it. These need to be good, reliable people, professionals. That is one of the reasons we have diplomats and embassies...they are supposed to be 'go-betweens' from our Government, but more importantly, from our culture, and another. And ignoring the warnings from such people is not wise. The history books are filled with crisises and wars, because of this. And when you have a leader, or administration, or government, that purposely ignores this, because they have a different agenda, then it is time to take a sober look. These two men did, saw no opportunity to change that, and did what their concious dictated - resigned in protest. To ignore this, or to 'paste' it over, with little concern, or thought, is dangerous, IMHO. It means that one is isolating ones possibilites of thought. I personally, like to keep my avenues as open as possible. But that is just me.

[OK... I originally wrote a post yesterday, but for some reason I've been having problems replying to a few threads here at the Asylum. I just wanted to test and see if I still couldn't reply to this one, but apparently I can. The post I wrote, though, is now out-dated, since the conversation has gone beyond that. Sorry for the clutter.]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-10-2003).]

Bugs: You said:

quote:

---

The idea that our recent actions will make people hate us is utterly ridiculous because we are already hated.

---

But this isn't a black and white thing (and should never be an excuse anyway - they hate us so what does it matter?). A small portion of the Arab world (and this is jamming them all into a category which is wrong) may have hated the US but a greater proportion might have been worried/concerned or even indifferent. What the war on Iraq has done is make more of Arabs hate the US (and the UK) even more and it appears that viewpoints have become more polarised so there is less middle ground and so less chance of a compromise within the Arab world.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

they hate us so what does it matter

---

apparently it's starting to matter. a friend of mine just told me that european hubs on Direct Connect block american IPs. What's next?
And either way, it's not pleasant to be hated. Say you come to France for a vocation and from your accent you'll be looked down upon, perhaps get mugged. Once again, most people do not recognize the difference between Government of a country and its citizens. So if Bush happened to be an asshole to the world - other countries' people will apply that label to all americans, and they will partially be right - americans voted for him.

quote:

---

americans voted for him

---

Well....that's debatable

just a point - that quote, whilst amusing, isn't really all that accurate.

once the fighting has stopped, peace can be experienced.

that does not apply to the second case.

You know, the whole problem with peace in the world is all the human beings living there.

And, I concur that the idea of man as an inherently peaceful animal is patently absurd.

Without conflict, struggle, etc. there is no growth, whether it be struggling against the depths of calculus or the struggle to push our bodies to their physical limits in order to obtain a small gold disk.

Imagine a planet where, for some reason or another, there was a low level of solar radiation, and in turn mutations did not occur and evolution was somewhat stymied as local flora and fauna found niches and a state of balance was achieved. Now, introduce a terrestrial plant, one that is used to competition and survival against encroaching neighbours. In a short span, the terrestrially introduced plants will have completely overcome the native plants.

Now, this is not to say that conflict has to come in the form of violence, but violence, actual physical harm, does arise from conflict.

We could have world peace right now. Just freeze the prices on all imports/exports and have each country cut down completely on all immigration and emigration. Americans stay in America and Germans stay in Germany and no country is to have any influence or presence outside of its geographical borders.

Peaceful? Yup. Sound like a world you'd like to live in? Probably not.

World, why do they have to fight for it's peace? when the truth is that we can't have it.
is the same question that I quite get from that quote.
Funny story is that I had a teacher for english who went to a protest in the City, he told us about his little finger got cut up, that's the other story not about him being in a protest actually, but I thought that I should share it with you guys. then some of my classmates seen him in the T.v the other night, he's a great story teller, he likes travelling, he travelled to China and India once.
He was protesting about peace too, but why?

quote:

---

introduce a terrestrial plant, one that is used to competition and survival against encroaching neighbours.

---

... is it just me, or Silence's purpose of mentioning this was to emphasyze that we (humans) do not belong on this planet? Well, it could be both... because I have too, thought of that many times. Just look at the balance in nature without humans. Those who are familiar with advanced mathematics, know the classical Predator-Prey models, which oscilate indefinitely as each party devours the other and then partially dies out due to the newly created scarcity of food. They never die out together, since as soon as the predators become less numerous, the population of herbivores skyrockets again.

Now, humans are brought into the equation - we eat the herbs, the herbivores, and the predators. We suck out the natural resources on the planet - and make it a less pleasant/healthy habitat not only for other living things, but also for ourselves.

They say we're animals? I think the only thing of ours that somehow resambles that of animals is the DNA. Greed, hatred, etc are something else. No animal kills in excess as we do, or for trophy's sake. No animals compete for "little golden disks" or keep the heads of their victims as memento mori. Is it just our 'humongous' brain cavities that are to blame for our misfortunes? Well, they always said, "ignorance is bliss."

So PEACE? with all this crap? HA! no way!!! it'd be easier to fuck for virginity.