| |
G0FTD > DEBATE 10.05.06 19:50l 55 Lines 1524 Bytes #999 (0) @ GBR
BID : EE4576G0FTD
Read: GUEST
Subj: G4XNH and opposing wars
Path: ON0AR<F6KMO<EA5DVS<KP4IG<HG8LXL<VE2PKT<VE1DRG<K0KCC<AA5JJ
Sent: 060510/0752z @:AA5JJ.AA5JJ.#NEOK.OK.USA.NOAM [Muskogee, OK.] #:30995 $:EE
Message-Id: <EE4576G0FTD@aa5jj.bbs>
Sender: g0ftd@aa5jj.aa5jj.#neok.ok.usa.noam
>From: g0ftd@aa5jj.aa5jj.#neok.ok.usa.noam
G4XNH wrote:-
> I am totally against warfare when sound debate is better
I agree, but sound debate is not always possible or a success.
When sound debate fails there are only two practical options available.
a) containment of the threat by all means possible without actually
declaring war upon a nation. A nation may also be a religion or a
preferred state of being as described by those that lead or follow it.
I can think of two examples of the latter.
or
b) You use anything possible to destroy the problem and ensure the future
well being of a nation and it's people are secure.
Those who believe in compassion and morality, as well as their own and
their nations well being, will attempt sound debate, containment and war
in that order. By doing so hardly equates to the next logical step being
immoral when the previous step has failed.
Thwe above should be considered as natural as the Hobbes and Locke
philosophy's which make up the basis of our modern nation and rights viz:
* equal rights
* government by consent
* individual personal liberty
* responsible government
* limited government
all of which are the very things alien to the threats we face from rogue
nations and those claiming messianic qualities.
This is also how the UN works.
To simply claim that all war is wrong regardless is mistaken folly on the
part of those claiming it.
- &y -
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
