I know.Just wondering what the difference is?
But I'll hold off for now.
(Don't want to spoil the fun of things unfolding as they will.)
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I know.Just wondering what the difference is?
In other words, being a peaceful person living in a peaceful country is less dangerous than being a warmonger living in a militaristic country.I think your location, and lifestyle are accurately described as "far from harm". It's not at all equivalent to someone who lives in Israel or America. That is the point. It's relatively easy to be a pacifist when living in Norway was a hermit.
Well I'm sure that the response to that question will be civil and factualI know.
But I'll hold off for now.
(Don't want to spoil the fun of things unfolding as they will.)
Probably none at all; and it has allowed you to deflect.
How does post 21 address the issue of a domino effect and a potential large scale conflict?BS. Reference #21.
I notice you see this purely in terms of what Iran can do to attack the US homeland. Nobody would disagree that they cannot do much there. But this is not what people are worried about.War takes two parties. Do you think Iran will invade the US, or fly over and bomb us ? No.
Irans response will be puny compared to a real war. We can project whatever power we desire to Iran, they are very limited in projection of power.
If they kill one, and in response we kill 100, or 200 they will figure it out.
If this kind of response was employed 40 years ago, iran would now be a responsible nation.
Iran started out as a petulant bully. Instead of corrected the bully immediately, we ignored it and every bully act it committed. In a strange way, we brought irans attacks on ourselves because we didn't spank the bully.
The election motivates the democrats and their crazy nonsense.
I don't think it was a major consideration of Trumps in smoking this terrorist.
How does post 21 address the issue of a domino effect and a potential large scale conflict?
Ah OK so the post you said was BS was not in fact BS, then.#21 was in reference to a lot of huffing and puffing about global right and wrong, not about this.
Ah OK so the post you said was BS was not in fact BS, then.
Seems I was not the only one, then.You really have no idea what I was talking about, and, frankly, it didn't concern any post except the previous one. Nothing to see here, move along.
I agree. Seriously. It's a big complicated problem, but, I don't see pacifism as being the solution. Everyone would need to agree to be pacifists. When that happens I'm on board. Till then it's risk assessment, and mitigation of threats.In other words, being a peaceful person living in a peaceful country is less dangerous than being a warmonger living in a militaristic country.
Ya know. Maybe the USA could learn something here.
Tom
I agree. Seriously. It's a big complicated problem, but, I don't see pacifism as being the solution. Everyone would need to agree to be pacifists. When that happens I'm on board. Till then it's risk assessment, and mitigation of threats.
I agree. The USA is the only world power left with any interest in preserving the rule of law and democratic principles (even though Trump is doing his damnedest to undermine that noble heritage). So it inevitably falls to the USA to try to show enough world leadership to rein on the other contenders. And that inevitably has a military dimension.I agree. Seriously. It's a big complicated problem, but, I don't see pacifism as being the solution. Everyone would need to agree to be pacifists. When that happens I'm on board. Till then it's risk assessment, and mitigation of threats.
BS. Reference #21.
Is there a term for those who can't pry their tongues from his boots and consider him infallible?The difference is TDS. ANYTHING Trump does is defacto, wrong.
If a larger response to an attack is counterproductive, then one wonders why it has been employed throughout history.I notice you see this purely in terms of what Iran can do to attack the US homeland. Nobody would disagree that they cannot do much there. But this is not what people are worried about.
As for the idea that, by replying with disproportionate force to each attack, you will pacify them, this seems to display a certain ignorance of human nature. That does not pacify an attacked nation. On the contrary, it breeds an implacable hatred that unites the people against the common foe. The attitude of the Palestinians to Israel is a case in point.
On the other thread you were arguing that the regime could be toppled by dissident forces within Iran, if the sanctions regime is allowed to do its work. A series of military attacks on Iran would immediately align the dissidents behind the leadership. That is what happens in time of war.
So you have to choose: either destroy the regime with military force - and then get into the nation building the USA was so bad at in Iraq, to try to prevent its successor regime being even worse, or refrain from aggressive military action and let sanctions and diplomacy encourage the dissidents to create pressures to reform the regime from within.
If you jump from one to the other, as Trump is doing, the chances are you get nowhere - and burn up Saudi Arabia into the bargain.
He isn't infallible, but neither is he wrong in every single decision.Is there a term for those who can't pry their tongues from his boots and consider him infallible?
Hey, I don't support this person in the white house... never have. And Hillary won the popular vote in 2016. So, yeah, I hear you. The American election system failed, and now the world has to pay for it. I can only do my part and vote. ( and maybe donate ).OK.
Instead of pacifism we try "Mind your own business".
The USA could do with a lot more of that. Then we wouldn't be in the Middle Eastern mess we have going on now.
But no, Trump's response is to escalate.
Again.
Tom