Would You Support A U.S. Nuclear First Strike Against North Korea?

For sake of discussion then, let us suppose that appeasement works to obviate the possibility of war, oh, say, 50 percent of the time.

Or even 75 percent.

Would this make it good?

I would argue that war is far preferable to what some have called "the peace of the grave."

Would you really prefer the absence of military hostilities (which some describe as "peace") to appeasement--regardless of the latter's consequences?

 

Everything is good - except it is bad.

War is violent nonsense.

I don't see a negative dimension in the "calmness of the grave" and the "peace of the graveyards". I do not live in fear of death.

What do you like to tell me now? War is nice? War makes sense? The way of peace is not the way of the weapons and violence makes not happy. So war is obsolete.




Uralter Worte kundig

Uralter Worte kundig kommt die Nacht;
Sie löst den Dingen Rüstung ab und Bande,
Sie wechselt die Gestalten und Gewande
Und hüllt den Streit in gleiche braune Tracht.

Da rührt das steinerne Gebirg sich sacht
Und schwillt wie Meer hinüber in die Lande.
Der Abgrund kriecht verlangend bis zum Rande
Und trinkt der Sterne hingebeugte Pracht.

Ich halte dich und bin von dir umschlossen,
Erschöpfte Wandrer wiederum zu Haus;
So fühl ich dich in Fleisch und Blut gegossen,

Von deinem Leib und Leben meins umkleidet,
Die Seele ruht von langer Sehnsucht aus,
Die eins vom andern nicht mehr unterscheidet.

Ricarda Huch

 

Just by definition, war is "violent."

But the "nonsense" part is for pure peaceniks...

I, too, do not "live in fear of death"--it is an inevitability--but I would not wish to replace life with it, in the near future. (And by "life," I mean far more than just existing.)

Of course war is not "nice."

But it does, indeed, make sense when the alternative is utter capitulation to an evil adversary.

 

War has always two terrible results: The first terrible result is to lose a war. In worst case you will not only lose your own life but even the life of everyone who you love. The other terrible result is to win a war, because this will give you the delusion you are able to solve problems with violence. Once you was successful to find fast and dirty violent pseudo-solutions you will continue to do war - until the time will without any doubt come, when you will lose your last war. "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." said Jesus once. The problem of the USA is the USA got an unbelievable amount of money as a result of world war 1. I guess this made you to a kind of drug addict in case of wars. Old Germanic tribes were often more wise: They gave everything what they earned with war to their gods and sank it in swamps. To earn money with war was criminal in their eyes. So: How much money would you personally pay for nuking down North Korea? And what else could you do with this money too? What would be more sensible?

 

Some "problems" are, indeed, solved through "violence."

Or do you believe, perhaps, that Hitler could have been stopped if only there had been enough Flower Children in the West, to do so?

Please do not take Jesus' words out of context.

In fact, the man was far from being a pacifist. (Remember, he chased the money changer out of the Temple.)

Oh, I see: Being anything other than an outright pacifist is equal to being a "drug addict."

Got it...

 

I know from a phycicist who was a German combat pilot in world war 2. He decided on good reasons not to kill any enemy of Germany, what would had been his duty. An allied fighter pilot shot him to death one day, what we could call "duty" too. Nevertheless this made no sense.

It's meanwhile clear that the bombs on Germany were in most case not only senseless but even counterproductive. They made the war only longer.

The context "sword" is clear "weapon". No one is allowed to defend with weapons Jesus, the son of god, true god from true god. To kill someone is unchristian as well as the use of weapons. Weapon adoration is unchristian too.

?

The son of men was perhaps angry, because the people bought sacrificial animals with the changed money and killed them - or because they made money itself to a god. The people there were saying and doing what everyone said and did - nevertheless Jesus saw in them criminals. So perhaps you should prove your automatisms, if you ever should try to become a Christian.

You think the USA should defend itself with a nuclear first strike against an unimportant tyrant who lives very far from the USA. Your argument "You call me evil, because I do not like to be a pacifist" is wrong. You are evil because you would use nukes without being able to calculate any risk to do so. The highest risk would be a nuclear overkill. If you like to do suicide then do it alone without nukes - and without us.

 

Wrong.

Even if appeasement were to actually prevent a war--which I seriously doubt--it would still not be "successful," as war prevention is certainly not the ultimate determinant of a "successful" foreign policy. (If it were, then we could just begin to disarm--unilaterally--as that would surely prevent war.)

 

I am happy to discuss--and even debate--with others.

What I am not happy to do, however, is to trade insults.

Since you consider me to be not merely wrong, but actually "evil," I will therefore place you on "Ignore."

And I would suggest that you reciprocate...

 

Some things are thinkable - others not. You are not able to know why a war did not happen. It is not existing. About things which are not existing you are not able to know something - what doesn't mean lots of people made not very good decisions because of their belief and they prevented wars. But only god knows in the end.

I don't know good wars and bad wars. War is always bad. To kill unknown people makes no sense.

 

When ancient Germanics made war they asked everyone - also all women. Today rich incompetent idiots decide to do wars. What went wrong?

Insult? I called you "evil" (German: "böse", "arg"). I did not call you a Nazi or something like this. I explained to you very well why I think you are evil.

Aha.

¿reciprocate? ... No. I do not ignore dangers. I would suggest to you - and to all US-Americans - to say nothing what could give anyone in the world the idea the USA could be a threat for the survival of all mankind. For example to say such stupid things like to do nuclear first strikes or nuclear preemptive strikes - what's absolutely the same as a first strike. It's very sick to say so.