Peace: at what cost?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TheAtmansPath, Mar 25, 2012.

  1. My belief, I think, is that the highest goal of society is peace and freedom. The highest goal of the individual is different, including those things as well as character traits like generosity and forgiveness.

    My question to you, ladies and gentlemen, is at what price will you defend peace?

    If america was attacked by al qaeda as in 9/11 for the first time, and it was up to you, would you chose the status-quo move of retaliation and neutralization of the enemy, or be the change you want to see, forgive and try to heal the relationship between us and our enemies?

    Is it more important to protect US citizens than it is to protect Afghani citizens? Is it more important to preserve the state than it is to attempt to end the cycle of violence?

    What is the worth of peace and freedom? would you sacrifice peace for freedom? Freedom for peace?

    Are peace and freedom the highest ideals of society your opinion?

    Feel free not to respond to each question specifically, I'd just like to hear your responses to this general post.

    Salaam, Shalom, Paz, Peace
     
  2. the highest goal is peace and freedom for SOME OF US in society. but for those who are in control of our society, the ultimate goal for them is money and power...which they get by war. so for the people with power, the goal for them is to continue to stay in power and gather wealth by any means nesscary. for the rest of us, we just want peace and to live safe happy lives.
     
  3. Freedom and peace are not mutually exclusive, the later is dependent on the former.

    The state cannot bring peace through preemptive measures, time and time again it proves otherwise.

    Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  4. If we want peace, we are going to have to stop invading foreign countries and telling people how to live. These wars in the middle east are a result of our policy in the region.
     
  5. "Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it."

    -Thomas Jefferson

    "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

    -George Washington

    "All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones."

    -Benjamin Franklin

    "History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

    -Ronald Reagan

    "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

    -Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by producing."

    -Ayn Rand

    "All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it."

    -Alexis de Tocqueville

    "How vile and despicable war seems to me! I would rather be hacked to pieces than take part in such an abominable business."

    -Albert Einstein

    "Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood."

    -The Mahatma Gandhi

    "Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things."

    -Ludwig von Mises
     
  6. War and retaliation are completely different things. I would submit they're mutually exclusive.
     

  7. so one couldn't retaliate by launching a war?
     
  8. #8 qwerty man, Mar 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2012
    You could, but it wouldn't be strategically prudent. Launching a war is a major waste of resources. Unless you're preventing an immediate threat, there is very little justification for war. And by immediate threat, I don't mean terrorism - I mean a fleet of Chinese planes on their way across the Pacific


    As for peace...peace is not something you calculate like a budget deficit - it's a culmination of a free economy, liberty, democracy and everything else that makes a society great. When all is well, peace will follow; but you don't try and implement peace through strategic operations and fool-hardy attempts to build nations in countries we know nothing about...
     

  9. They could if they wanted to act like a child throwing a tantrum and initiate aggression against other people.

    I guess what I meant was that war is mutually exclusive to legitimate retaliation.
     


  10. There's a middle ground to be had here.

    Remember there are people who seek to hurt you, and find a way to defend yourself from it happening to you. No need to try and heal something with an enemy, but also no need to kill everyone you have to to retaliate.
     
  11. #11 lilro, Mar 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2012
    I believe the highest goal of the human being is to have free control over oneself and your property. The problems arise when certain human beings get to make other human beings and their assets, their property, as many governments do. For instance, when you "buy" land in the US, you are agreeing that the person allowing the sale is the owner, which is fundamentally incorrect. Also, by paying "property taxes", you are consenting that the land is indeed NOT yours to own, but yours to use, for a fee. Which means you are consenting that said government OWNS the land in which you inhabit. You then pay sales tax on everything you purchase, which is consenting that every product of said government's land is ALSO their property for them to own, and for you to USE. This builds the mindset in the government that YOUR body is for them to OWN, and for you to USE. Which brings along drug laws, and executive orders claiming full control over all US resources. If you use a drug they do not allow, you consent to being locked in a cage. Similar to locking a dog in a kennel for pissing on the carpet. YOU are their property. Until people stand up and stop being PROPERTY, and start being PROSPEROUS, peace will NEVER come. The government wants to keep their control over their property as much as you do yours.

    The only way to "defend" peace, is to be your own person. Stop obeying laws you don't agree with. Stop paying taxes. Stop buying from large corporations while protesting those same corporations. Stop using iPhones when you oppose slave labor. Samsung made a killing in free promotion from coverage of Occupy.

    I believe the 9/11 attack on America was committed by America, so I can't really answer that question. I would've did what I could to avoid it in the first place.

    It is important to protect yourself, and your family, and let darwinism and evolution work itself out.

    Freedom and peace are one in the same. You cannot sacrifice one for the other, and any attempt to will result in the loss of both. Look at our situation now. It is like sacrificing your veins for your arteries. If you attempt it you will die.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A]The Story of Your Enslavement - Youtube[/ame]
     
  12. You can't really neutralize a threat thats already dead, and I kinda think America wished 9/11 on itself, if it wasn't done itself.. this one is sticky. I wouldn't take an attack on a country I am president of without setting an example that that will not be happening again, then I'd be open to negotiation for a better good. Its not really about "getting back", moreso about defining boundaries (AKA i will not put up with getting bombed), and the fact that I would expect a country or a leader to treat other countries the way they want to be treated.


    No, and not really but I say that with reservation. the value of human life is (or at least I try very hard to make it) equal for any race, religion, or nationality. As for the second question, I think its very important, necessary even, to end this cycle of violence, but I think the US has great potential in helping, so I'd like to keep that together to end all this fighting.


    I don't think you have to sacrifice one for the other.

    And honesty, and creativity! And trustfulness. But I'm kind of idealistic right :rolleyes:
     
  13. #13 NasaJoe, Mar 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2012
    War is a fucking racket, your lesson of retribution would be lost on deaf ears to the people who lost family members in your war.

    You think the person who kills himself in the name of G-d reflects on the consequences his actions before he acts? Rage and bigotry are the only thing that leads to fundamentalists acting the way they do. We lost 3,000 people in 9/11 (RIP) but I worry for the next attack that imo is sure to come thanks to our awful foreign policy.
     
  14. I didn't say do the iraq war, I understand that war is retarded.

    U.S. killed 100,000 iraq civvies, and in total 7000 or so americans have died, including the war and 9/11? How do we define our acts as just and the others as terroristic and evil? it doesn't make sense to me.

    However, taking an attack without taking immediate and accurate retribution seems counter-intuitive.. if nothing is stopping an attack.. what prevents the next one? I suppose its analogous to "countries" being people and "attacks" being punches that are thrown, you don't want to get stepped on in the name of peace.
     
  15. Honesty and Respect
     
  16. "We must recognize that war is common and strife is justice, and all things happen according to strife and necessity."

    "War is the father of all and king of all, who manifested some as gods and some as men, who made some slaves and some freemen."

    - Heraclitus
     
  17. Bump for LewRockwell.com.

    One of the best libertarian sites out there. Lots of great anti war articles and podcasts, and obviously great economics as well.

    Antiwar.com is also good.
     
Loading...

Share This Page