He is the President of the USA. He can order a withdrawal any time that he likes - of course he would be a fool to do so. They are his wars now.

He'll start the Korean and or Iranian war, the casualties from either will make these little spats look like a Friday night in Detroit.

"Where Are Protests Of Obama'S Wars?"

I didn't realise that Obama had actually started any wars. I thought he was just trying to manage those started by his predecessors.

There were still protests when Nixon was President and he didn't start Vietnam. He was actually 3rd in line behind Kennedy and Johnson.

Besides, the Afghanistan War has escalated under Obama so he has definietly put his stamp on it. Adding about 30,000 more troops buys him a piece of the ownership.

The Iraq War was winding down thanks to the Surge when he got in office and if I remember correctly, next month all combat troops will be out of Iraq according to what Obama said in Jan-Feb 2009. Although, I think all that means is that they will get the new job title of "advisor". Of course, Gitmo is still open 6 months after he guaranteed it would be closed.

I remember during the election I partly wanted Obama to win just to see the reaction from the lefties who actually believed he was going to pull troops out of Iraq. They will probably NEVER be out completely. Even Bush admitted asmuch in one interview and it shocked a few naive people.

"Where Are Protests Of Obama'S Wars?"

I didn't realise that Obama had actually started any wars. I thought he was just trying to manage those started by his predecessors.

There were still protests when Nixon was President and he didn't start Vietnam. He was actually 3rd in line behind Kennedy and Johnson.

Besides, the Afghanistan War has escalated under Obama so he has definietly put his stamp on it. Adding about 30,000 more troops buys him a piece of the ownership.

The Iraq War was winding down thanks to the Surge when he got in office and if I remember correctly, next month all combat troops will be out of Iraq according to what Obama said in Jan-Feb 2009. Although, I think all that means is that they will get the new job title of "advisor". Of course, Gitmo is still open 6 months after he guaranteed it would be closed.

I remember during the election I partly wanted Obama to win just to see the reaction from the lefties who actually believed he was going to pull troops out of Iraq. They will probably NEVER be out completely. Even Bush admitted asmuch in one interview and it shocked a few naive people.

who knows, with the latest wikileaks, it could be the catalyst for people to start protesting

Protesting what? Thanks to radical Muslims and rogue regimes sometimes war is a necessary evil.

Protesting what? Thanks to radical Muslims and rogue regimes sometimes war is a necessary evil.

not to mention the quantity of natural resources in Afghanistan

Protesting what? Thanks to radical Muslims and rogue regimes sometimes war is a necessary evil.

not to mention the quantity of natural resources in Afghanistan

Don't get too worked up over it. Every place has or has had some kind of natural resource or another. IF we take it for free (like the true colonizers of the past), then I will agree this is a war about resources. IF we have to pay top dollar for it like we are with oil, then it isn't.

Protesting what? Thanks to radical Muslims and rogue regimes sometimes war is a necessary evil.

Death and killing in the name of peace and as a means to resultant peace is an absolute and utter fallacy. Until you are willing to understand why, Ulysses, you will forever believe that war is necessary, and continue to support it.

What's the old saying?

Make not

By the by, since when did you get up to 18+K posts? I can still remember when Brit was the first to break 10K (or was it Jai Dee?). Geezus, where did the time go? You do look a helluva lot older since the last time I saw you, Ulysses.

I'm sorry, but, do you really think that mankind is anywhere near ready to renounce violence to settle our differences?

All you have to do is look at the angry nutters right here in OTB who profess to be peace-nicks if you want to get true picture of what lying hypocrites most of the "peace" movement are.

Most of these people are not sincere. They are just using dishonest rhetoric in order to advance their own radical political agendas.

I'm sorry, but, do you really think that mankind is anywhere near ready to renounce violence to settle our differences?

Since there is only one person in all the world whom any individual has the ability to change (themselves) then it matters not what the rest of mankind decides to do. The only thing of importance is what one decides for oneself. And that decision does go out and make a difference in the world (good or bad, depending on the decision, natch).

To choose a path which one knows will bring only pain is folly. Time to stand apart from all of those who advocate death as a viable solution. Let them be fools. At least you will have made a decision not to join them, and that will have a positive effect in at least your own personal life in ways you can't begin to calculate.

Killing is not a solution, nor can it ever be, for many quite valid reasons. In fact, it begets more killing, the exact opposite of what you really want . . . peace. Is it so difficult to understand?

Killing is not a solution, nor can it ever be, for many quite valid reasons. In fact, it begets more killing, the exact opposite of what you really want . . . peace. Is it so difficult to understand?

i would agree with that, it becomes a never ending cycle of violence

I'm sorry, but, do you really think that mankind is anywhere near ready to renounce violence to settle our differences?

All you have to do is look at the angry nutters right here in OTB who profess to be peace-nicks if you want to get true picture of what lying hypocrites most of the "peace" movement are.

Most of these people are not sincere. They are just using dishonest rhetoric in order to advance their own radical political agendas.

i didnt think there were any angry nutters on OTB on either side, just differences of opinion

Death and killing in the name of peace and as a means to resultant peace is an absolute and utter fallacy.

An utter fallacy? The utter fallacy here is that you can have peace WITHOUT killing anyone. Those weren't bundles of flowers that were dropped on Nazi Germany & Japan, you know.

Death and killing in the name of peace and as a means to resultant peace is an absolute and utter fallacy.

An utter fallacy? The utter fallacy here is that you can have peace WITHOUT killing anyone. Those weren't bundles of flowers that were dropped on Nazi Germany & Japan, you know.

Your premise is that you must kill to achieve peace. Please, explain in detail the rationale of how that would work, how lasting peace would ultimately be achieved by endless killing. It hasn't worked since the dawn of recorded history but perhaps you have an idea that no one has thought up yet. Please, elaborate.

Death and killing in the name of peace and as a means to resultant peace is an absolute and utter fallacy.

An utter fallacy? The utter fallacy here is that you can have peace WITHOUT killing anyone. Those weren't bundles of flowers that were dropped on Nazi Germany & Japan, you know.

Your premise is that you must kill to achieve peace. Please, explain in detail the rationale of how that would work, how lasting peace would ultimately be achieved by endless killing. It hasn't worked since the dawn of recorded history but perhaps you have an idea that no one has thought up yet. Please, elaborate.

You now add in the qualifier "endless" because you realise that you have screwed the pooch and have already lost the debate before it had a chance to begin. If the killing is endless, then it isn't really peace is it? Killing throughout the world won't stop in our lifetime, but it has stopped regionally.

Peace in Western Europe seems to be lasting pretty well after fighting and winning the war against Nazi facism which brought war to Europe in the first place. After years of fiighting and a couple nukes dropped on Imperial Japan they have been a model of peace lovers ever since. MUST we kill to achieve peace? Maybe not, but it's the only method that has ever worked - other than bowing down to accept being enslaved by an invader. We've had this discussion here before, you peace-through-love people are alive ONLY because someone else has been willing to die. Now, don't hurt yourself falling off your high horse.

Your turn. Please list details of all the times in history where love & flowers turned away invading armies and resulting in lasting peace?

It hasn't worked since the dawn of recorded history but perhaps you have an idea that no one has thought up yet.

This is his point and pretending that things will be settled peacefully any time in the near future is utterly naive. Ihe US is protecting national interests and only a Westerner lunatic would prefer that China be the greatest world power instead.

Maybe not, but it's the only method that has ever worked - other than bowing down to accept being enslaved by an invader. We've had this discussion here before, you peace-through-love people are alive ONLY because someone else has been willing to die. Now, don't hurt yourself falling off your high horse.

Right on. Tell them dude!

Since there is only one person in all the world whom any individual has the ability to change (themselves) then it matters not what the rest of mankind decides to do. The only thing of importance is what one decides for oneself.

Hey Tippaporn

Glad to see you posting once again.

Hi Flying. Cheers likewise. Are you ready to have some fun with this?

Hi Flying. Cheers likewise. Are you ready to have some fun with this?

hahah

Always nice to watch you work

Are you ready to have some fun with this?

It looks like you will be stepping into naam's shoes. It has been reported in Bedlam that he has been "effectively" banned. Anyone have any idea what that means?

Death and killing in the name of peace and as a means to resultant peace is an absolute and utter fallacy.

An utter fallacy? The utter fallacy here is that you can have peace WITHOUT killing anyone. Those weren't bundles of flowers that were dropped on Nazi Germany & Japan, you know.

Your premise is that you must kill to achieve peace. Please, explain in detail the rationale of how that would work, how lasting peace would ultimately be achieved by endless killing. It hasn't worked since the dawn of recorded history but perhaps you have an idea that no one has thought up yet. Please, elaborate.

You now add in the qualifier "endless" because you realise that you have screwed the pooch and have already lost the debate before it had a chance to begin. If the killing is endless, then it isn't really peace is it? Killing throughout the world won't stop in our lifetime, but it has stopped regionally.

Peace in Western Europe seems to be lasting pretty well after fighting and winning the war against Nazi facism which brought war to Europe in the first place. After years of fiighting and a couple nukes dropped on Imperial Japan they have been a model of peace lovers ever since. MUST we kill to achieve peace? Maybe not, but it's the only method that has ever worked - other than bowing down to accept being enslaved by an invader. We've had this discussion here before, you peace-through-love people are alive ONLY because someone else has been willing to die. Now, don't hurt yourself falling off your high horse.

Your turn. Please list details of all the times in history where love & flowers turned away invading armies and resulting in lasting peace?

The killing is indeed endless, koheesti. Once you've committed to killing as a resolution policy it never ends. Does it? Of course, killing is not only used in resolving conflicts but also, as UG mentioned, in "protecting" America's interests. Unfortunately, what America deems good for herself may not always be for the good of the rest of the world. Just ask the rest of the world for their opinion if you don't believe me. But that's a tangent.

You've skirted elaborating on how killing would bring about lasting peace; in other words, how the policy would culminate in bringing about a society in which we simply don't murder each other anymore . . . for any reason. What would serve, for instance, as the inflection point, the turning point, where we once and for all turn away from killing and murder as a viable solution to our problems and challenges and begin to seek other answers which do not involve violence perpetrated upon our own kind?

What types of changes within ourselves, individually and as a society, would we need to adopt in order to reach that turning point? How would our beliefs about ourselves necessarily need to alter? What ideas would be conducive to peace? And which ideas do we currently cling to which hold us in seeming perpetuity in our current state where killing is such an accepted means of dealing with our problems?

Pointing to World War II as conclusive evidence that killing works is, in my opinion, more than just a tad misleading. And to note, I am not implying that you are being deliberately disingenuous in the least by offering World War II as an example to prove your point. I say that it is misleading for a variety of reasons, most of which I don't have time to touch upon here, but importantly so for the overly simplistic view that most have of that war. A very rudimental storyline: bad guys get aggressive forcing good guys to defend themselves with the good guys triumphing is, to me, about as superficial of an analysis for such a monumental global event as could be mustered.

Also, because of the common belief held that the war was inevitable. No doubt that was our historical ending but I think it would be an error to conclude the inevitability of it based solely on how the overall event eventually played itself out. There could be much material to introduce and debate here. But I feel this would be another tangent to the topic of whether or not killing is necessary to, and perhaps even the singular means of producing lasting peace.

As to your taunts that a high-on-the-horse peace-through-love person, ahem, idiot, can only find existence in this world through the sacrifice of those people who are willing to die, well, I'll choose to ignore that type of distracting commentary. I admit that I certainly came across as taunting you in my previous post. This forum is titled, "Out Of The Box," and we are not engaging here (hopefully) to sling mud at people for daring to step outside of the box. We are, after all, not our ideas. I have to sometimes remind myself of that as well.

Due to my work schedule I can't always post when I'd like, so excuse the delay in replying.

Your turn. Please list details of all the times in history where love & flowers turned away invading armies and resulting in lasting peace?

The killing is indeed endless, koheesti. Once you've committed to killing as a resolution policy it never ends. Does it? Of course, killing is not only used in resolving conflicts but also, as UG mentioned, in "protecting" America's interests. Unfortunately, what America deems good for herself may not always be for the good of the rest of the world. Just ask the rest of the world for their opinion if you don't believe me. But that's a tangent.

Here's one; protecting the oil supply in the Middle East is in America's interest and in the interest of the rest of the world.

You've skirted elaborating on how killing would bring about lasting peace; in other words, how the policy would culminate in bringing about a society in which we simply don't murder each other anymore . . . for any reason.

Interesting technique. Every time I give you an answer, you change the question. Now "lasting peace" not only means not going to war, but also that all murder will end. I know the answer the answer to that as well. But there is no reason to tell you because you will just change the question - again.

Pointing to World War II as conclusive evidence that killing works is, in my opinion, more than just a tad misleading. And to note, I am not implying that you are being deliberately disingenuous in the least by offering World War II as an example to prove your point. I say that it is misleading for a variety of reasons, most of which I don't have time to touch upon here, but importantly so for the overly simplistic view that most have of that war.

WWII is a perfect example - unless you change the question again. You asked for an example of killing leading to lasting peace (nothing about murder). How can we know if the peace is lasting or not? I can't point to something that might have happened last week now, can I? WWII ended 65 years ago and after all that killing (the Allies didn't meet the Axis Powers with flowers), and Western Europe has seen it's longest stretch of peace in human history.

btw - I'm still waiting for your answer to, "Please list details of all the times in history where love & flowers turned away invading armies and resulting in lasting peace?"

The American Civil War pretty well stopped war in the US. Not counting crime, which any country will have whether they are involved in a war or not.

No US states have declared war on each other since.

Does 145 years of peacetime count?

WWII is a perfect example - unless you change the question again. You asked for an example of killing leading to lasting peace (nothing about murder). How can we know if the peace is lasting or not? I can't point to something that might have happened last week now, can I? WWII ended 65 years ago and after all that killing (the Allies didn't meet the Axis Powers with flowers), and Western Europe has seen it's longest stretch of peace in human history.

btw - I'm still waiting for your answer to, "Please list details of all the times in history where love & flowers turned away invading armies and resulting in lasting peace?"

Sadly many would say WW2 ended with two vast armed camps taking their disagreements to developing countries and carrying on the fighting there. So did it ever end ?

WWII is a perfect example - unless you change the question again. You asked for an example of killing leading to lasting peace (nothing about murder). How can we know if the peace is lasting or not? I can't point to something that might have happened last week now, can I? WWII ended 65 years ago and after all that killing (the Allies didn't meet the Axis Powers with flowers), and Western Europe has seen it's longest stretch of peace in human history.

btw - I'm still waiting for your answer to, "Please list details of all the times in history where love & flowers turned away invading armies and resulting in lasting peace?"

Sadly many would say WW2 ended with two vast armed camps taking their disagreements to developing countries and carrying on the fighting there. So did it ever end ?

Are you are referring to the Cold War between the USA & USSR? Even their proxy wars were in the 3rd world while Western Europe enjoyed peace. I think you can only have peace after massive bloodshed. Small amounts of casualties between countries are like punching someone in the arm - it's not going to make the other side give up. Heavy amage needs to be suffered before one side will give in/surrender.

koheesti, come now. The question has not changed. And war is nothing more than murder on a mass scale. The idea here is that killing, murder is not a solution to resolving conflicts, no matter whether the scale involves two individuals or entire nations. The scale is not relevant. As long as killing is an accepted method of resolving conflicts then it will never stop. And the blatantly obvious fact is that it hasn't.

Wars must conclude eventually. And yes, peace generally follows. To draw the conclusion, though, that the war was then necessary is, well, naive to put it mildly.

Not to worry about answering. I do understand how difficult it must be to defend the indefensible. And how utterly difficult it must be to attempt to conceive other solutions.

Other solutions have been applied with success in the past. Ghandi managed to evict the British without waging war. No small feat. Martin Luther King advanced equality among blacks through peaceful means. That's not to say that either of those events were entirely devoid of violence. And from personal experience, I literally disarmed a man who had a gun stuck in my belly button . . . with a smile.

Not to worry about answering. I do understand how difficult it must be to defend the indefensible. And how utterly difficult it must be to attempt to conceive other solutions.

Other solutions have been applied with success in the past. Ghandi managed to evict the British without waging war. No small feat. Martin Luther King advanced equality among blacks through peaceful means. That's not to say that either of those events were entirely devoid of violence. And from personal experience, I literally disarmed a man who had a gun stuck in my belly button . . . with a smile.

I HAVE ANSWERED. You're too thick-skulled to understand. WAR leads to PEACE. After WWII in Western Europe for the past 65 years and in the USA after out Civil War for 155 years of continued and lasting peace.

While I will agree that Ghandi and MLK Jr did it the right way (too bad the Palestinians can't learn from them) it wasn't all kumbayya. With India it was after WWII when the British - like other European countries - were too broke to afford the colonies anymore that played a big part in the Brits leaving. And no one can claim that peace has been lasting in India. How many wars have they fought with Pakistan since then? 4-5? Kashmir is still a mess as well.

As for MLK Jr., I'm not sure that counts because it was a domestic policy issue, there would have been no "war" if he resorted to viollence. People would have been arrested and thrown in jail.

I HAVE ANSWERED. You're too thick-skulled to understand. WAR leads to PEACE. After WWII in Western Europe for the past 65 years and in the USA after out Civil War for 155 years of continued and lasting peace.

Peace? For whom? Certainly not for those hundreds of instances as Europe and American continued their imperial quest away from their shores - through proxy conflicts, initiating civil wars, covert and black ops, unjust occupations, manipulating coups d'etat, invasions and interference of every sort. That peace? Surely, such ideals and thought process derives from a extremely Eurocentric perspective.

I HAVE ANSWERED. You're too thick-skulled to understand. WAR leads to PEACE. After WWII in Western Europe for the past 65 years and in the USA after out Civil War for 155 years of continued and lasting peace.

Peace? For whom? Certainly not for those hundreds of instances as Europe and American continued their imperial quest away from their shores - through proxy conflicts, initiating civil wars, covert and black ops, unjust occupations, manipulating coups d'etat, invasions and interference of every sort. That peace? Surely, such ideals and thought process derives from a extremely Eurocentric perspective.

You're spinning so fast you're about to go into orbit. The lands of the US and Western Europe were the bloody wars were fought and people died haven't known war in 155 and 64 years respectively. THAT IS A FACT."Oh, but some people from there went someplace else and weren't peacful!!" Are you serious? :rolleyes: Even if you are, there was no peace in North Korea when went. Nor in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. Grenada was pretty peaceful but it is even more so now.