Given the international community, it's probably going to become less and less common for territorial expansions to happen through the conquest of one country to another. I don't think the practice will ever completely end, but it will become less common.
As it should, imo. To grab land for the sake of greed and conquest is unacceptable in the modern world, or should be. And before everyone has a STROKE, I include Israel in that equation as well. The only slim possibility - and it is nearly invisible - of Israel ever knowing any peace prior to Christ's return is to negotiate away a portion of the land they control in the hope of finding neighbors willing to coexist with them. The Palestinians have proven they will never really stop the aggressions but if Israel tries once more to buy the peace and once more they are made busy burying their children and elders for their naivete then I think the national psyche will finally harden to the truth and matters will be set right in the only way left to them.
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
The only one there ever was...a strong military and a will to use it.
How free is the Golden Horde lately? How free are the Nazis? How free is Saddam Hussein? Don't peddle your false guarantees on me, I'm not interested. Power is a precarious thing, because too many wicked people want it. Wrapping it up in a false freedom colored wrapper didn't help.
You speak about the military like it's this robotic slave class of scapegoats for you to judge the performance of and not care about the moral and physical wreck that using it always causes. Have you ever been a part of the only freedom there ever was? Have you ever gotten used?
Freedom is taken for granted when you rely on the freedom of others to protect your own. Every soldier, even the one who volunteers, signs his a$$ away to the government to tow the line and letter of the code. If freedom was what we really cared about we'd want a strong military and a reluctance to use it. Like the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces once said, I wouldn't take anyone seriously who proposed the idea of preventative war to me. That's the invention of Hitler and it belongs in the dust bin of history with Hitler along with every other modern-day moron who's dumb enough to emulate him.
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill
Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:24 PM
Good topic actually.
I have a strong personal opinion on this, which is actually really simple and gets down to the point of freedom/human rights: Let the people of the country decide by vote.
Not being funny but why not?
We say that Britain has the right to the Falklands because the people there are British and want to be British. Look how much problems that solves!
Just ask the people. Governments have too much control as it is. The point of a government is to work FOR the people, not the other way around. So let the people have the choice how their country works/is owned by.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
As long as a few men can decide when an entire nation enters into a war and when it exits, there will never be a satisfactory solution to what's legitimate during war, not an actual reason for it. No nation should be thought of as better then the rest or less then the rest, because a nation is composed of the people living in it, not the government or military. A military should only ever be used for protection, never a statement of 'look at this, I can and will crush you if you attack me', because that just breeds defensive anger and fear which will lead to war.
But in this case the concept of civilization is being used to further the aims of the most uncivilized of antagonists,imo. One side playing within the rules and the other making their own up as they go, as it were.... The double standard is sickening to me and I suspect if the shoe were on another foot the opinions would differ greatly about the correct action to resolve the problem. Maybe the problem is so resistant to solutions because it is a direct throwback to a completely uncivilized time. It will eventually offer sociologists an opportunity to see just how far a "civilized" people will go to attempt to survive unending hatred. Hopefully some bright soul will be around to write it up for posterity.
It’s not the most uncivilized of antagonists. Islam is still just another culture and it is a conflict between cultures. As many have pointed out, is it not the right of any opposition to fight? And the answer is yes. But that has never been the point. All life fights to survive. But not all organisms do survive. That is the nature of nature. Individual cultures in our civilization are the same way. Some will survive and others will not. And for the health of civilization, you don’t want every single one surviving.
Yes, Islam is making up its own rules and the double standard is sickening. We saw this in the recent protests from that movie ridiculing Mohammed (reminiscent of the jyllands-Posten cartoons and many others). I guess it is ok to ridicule any other religion but not Islam. I think you see that same mentality raise its head in this forum.
There really was no “uncivilized” time. From the time that there were 2 people, we had civilization. And some civilized people will go all the way to survive. The weak will die. Survival of the fittest.