Therumancer said:
fractal_butterfly said:
snip
So you are saying, that the only way you think world peace is possible is by rightout war, where one nation annihilates all other nations in the end? This is quite sad...
You know, a whish for peace and all nations getting along is not a sign of weakness, quite the contrary. Try to understand other people and cultures, walk a mile in their shoes. Try to understand their drive, and you will understand, that they are not as much different from you as you think. It is really hard to accomplish, but it is the only way we can get out of this mess alive.
You can not eradicate what is different, because there will always be someone, who is different. In the end, you would be left with one guy left alive on a pile of billions of dead bodies.
I also think, that you didn't understand my point. I didn't argue that "The Bombs" were bad, because of all the death it had caused. One reason this should never have happened are the consequences for the environment. In the end, the radiation set free with the use and before that the testings of the bombs lead to a higher radiation pollution in the global atmoshphere than Tschernobil. The recent reactor disaster in Fukushima is like a fart combined to the global effect of A-Bomb testing in the 1960s. There are still people dying from the aftereffects of the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, still deformed children. These events scarred the ecology of our planet on a global scale. Your view is quite centered on the US (I presume, you are from the US?), without realizing that all actions have a global effect and will in the end affect you. What do you think would happen, if the USA would rule supreme over Europe, Russia and China? Think about the consequences for the global economy, think about where the stuff you use and consume on a daily basis is coming from.
Regardless, the main point I was making is, that the usage of the A-Bomb deformed us as human beings. The Bombs were dropped on civilian cities. Women and children. It was an act of terrorism (wait, bare with me, terrorism is often only a point of view). They didn't even ransom. They didn't drop it first on unpopulated terrain to demonstrate power. What they did was to say: "Look, we have the power to slaughter all your people, women and children included. And we are depraved enough to do it." The USA became themselves the villain, when they dropped the bombs. From then on they were no more than thugs with a bigger cudgel than the rest of the world. Bombing a civilian city is not an act of war. It is just a crime. It can't be rationalized, it will always be what it is. You can't do such a thing for the greater good, it will twist its original purpose.
I really try to understand you. I try to understand your motives. For example, explain me, why the root of the problems in the USA is the fact, that they don't want to take actions against their "enemies"? Why isn't the root of the problem a financial system, that is designed to rip of the poor? Why isn't the problem an educational system that is hardly equipped to teach the basics and drives students into tremendous financial depts? Why isn't the problem a jurisdictional system, that leads to 1% of the adult population being imprisoned? Why isn't the problem a governtment, that doesn't even trust their own population and has to install severe surveillance?
I don't deny that the USA has enemies, and I don't deny that there are outside influences that are negative for the USA. But the problem is not a bunch of terrorists who attack your freedom. The problem is way more complex than that and it cannot just be solved by "having the will to take action and do what's necessary". If you invaded North Korea and the Iran, you wouldn't solve anything, only create a plethora of new problems.
