A Political Fantasy: Their Own Country

[takingchances42]

I made the mistake of starting this morning reading a few of the political threads. Must be a buried streak of masochism in me.

Sometimes I have a fantasy about all the people, inside the U.S. and other countries, who see the military and all wars as being evil. I wish we could give them their own country.

No military/industrial complex. Let them put all their money into education and social welfare. Never let them fire a shot, have them sit down and negotiate with with other people. None of these war-mongers among them, no deaths by friendly fire. Let them keep their wealth and standard of living. No retaliation for terrorist attacks -- let them talk. Let them be reasonable people, peace loving people, and try to resolve all conflicts without violence, or risking their sons or daughters.

And park them right next door to a neighboring country with a differing view of things. Someplace like Iraq or North Korea currently. Or the Soviet Union 30 years ago. Or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan 60 years ago.

And let them live out their beliefs...

It must be nice to get a free ride, morally speaking. To enjoy all the benefits of freedom. While vilifying those who make that freedom possible.

 

[Guest]

You call this a fantasy, but it isn't, is it? You sound powerless, confused and frightened. Don't you understand why the world wants to drink your blood? You've never done anything, so why should you have to experience fear? Don't those brown people realise that you're American, a citizen of the most powerful nation that has ever existed? They should be afraid of you, not defiant!

My advice to you is to kill yourself before the poor people of the world come and take their revenge. If you do, then you will hurt them and make them realise they are wrong.

 

[takingchances42]

You are so right. I am so wrong. You are so brave, posting as unregistered and trolling. You would make an ideal citizen for my fantasy country... where you would not have to live with misguided people such as myself.

 

[kotori]

Um, Sweden? Switzerland?

I'm not saying that these places are an Utopia, and maybe you'll say I should just move. But I like it here and think we can make it better.

I lived through this "my country right or wrong" thing before. It's part of the reason I am who I am.

 

[takingchances42]

Um, Sweden? Switzerland?

I'm not saying that these places are an Utopia, and maybe you'll say I should just move. But I like it here and think we can make it better.

I lived through this "my country right or wrong" thing before. It's part of the reason I am who I am.

I would argue that Sweden and Switzerland both exist because they got a free ride. Other countries paid in blood to defeat, for example, Nazi Germany. If the U.S. had decided to make peace and be reasonable with Hitler, I very much doubt that either Sweden or Switzerland would have survived independent until 1945.

To go with my fantasy, go back to 1943. Have the US and USSR make peace with Nazi Germany. And see how long either Sweden or Switzerland would have survived with Hitler as a neighbor, all on their own, with the conviction of their beliefs.

 

[Crab]

Sweden probably would have survived, as there would have been no strategic advantage in maintaining a presence there if the circumstances you suggest had occured, and Switzerland certainly would have continued unmolested.

It must be nice to get a free ride, morally speaking. To enjoy all the benefits of freedom. While vilifying those who make that freedom possible.

Just by the way, what the hell does that mean, takingchances42?

Crab

 

[SINthysist]

I know exactly what he's saying...

 

[RastaPope]

Sweden probably would have survived, as there would have been no strategic advantage in maintaining a presence there if the circumstances you suggest had occured, and Switzerland certainly would have continued unmolested.


Just by the way, what the hell does that mean, takingchances42?

Crab

He's saying: fuck yellow bellied hippied who bitch and moan about war while enjoying the spoils it produces for them.


Or at least that's what I'm saying.

 

[takingchances42]

Sweden probably would have survived, as there would have been no strategic advantage in maintaining a presence there if the circumstances you suggest had occured, and Switzerland certainly would have continued unmolested.


Just by the way, what the hell does that mean, takingchances42?

Crab

If you had been Hitler, Sweden and Switzerland would have survived. You likely never would have invaded the rest of Western Europe or the Soviet Union, either. But Hitler clearly wasn't you. The man was a megolamaniac who wanted to conquer the world. Both neutral nations survived because of mountainous borders, and it being inconvenient to invade them, while Germany had bigger wars to fight. If Germany had had the opportunity, both had significant strategic advantages, in terms of consolidating a hold on an entire continent, and the creation of a "thousand year" civilization.

 

[takingchances42]

He's saying: fuck yellow bellied hippied who bitch and moan about war while enjoying the spoils it produces for them.

Or at least that's what I'm saying.

Pretty much, other than the yellow bellied hippie part. I like asians. And there are few things finer than an earthy, hippie woman...

 

[Crab]

Right. I thought you were saying (obliquely) that the world just ins't as you would wish it, and that someone should fix it up for you. Oh, wait! You were.

 

[Sandia]

If there'd been a few more peace loving people in Japan or Germany, those wars wouldn't have happened.

 

[peachykeen]

I'm about as lefty liberal as they come on most issues. Sure, I would love for there to be no war, and so I choose to live my life in a state of consciousness with that as my goal. However I'm also not completely out of touch with reality - I realize that not everyone is going to respond to a friendly overture of "Let's sit down and talk this out." But I still maintain that as my platonic ideal and would hope that my country uses its power wisely and not to bully (which certainly seems to be the case more often than not).

 

[Crab]

That sounds like a nice thought Sandia, but what peaceloving folk there were soon got marginalised... A lot of pacifist thinkers, like methodist ministers, Jehovahs Witnesses and other freethinkers were killed off, well, in Germany, anyway. I doubt if they would have fared much better in Japan.
The world needs warriors. Sad fact of life...

 

[Sandia]

The world needs warriors who understand things like restraint, compassion, and self-examination, before they go to war.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

The world needs warriors who understand things like restraint, compassion, and self-examination, before they go to war.

They have them, Sandia! Hitler took years to build up his military power. He worked the German political scene to perfection and then did the same with world political leaders. Had there been but one or two more Chamberlains in GB Peeper would be speaking German......at best! Actually, he probably would if Europe hadn't made it so easy for Hitler that he thought he could fight a two front war. One small mistake....

Rhumb

 

[sexy-girl]

sometimes war is needed but its debatable if all the wars we've had recently have been needed

also when war is needed it shouldn't relished or looked forward to people that love and enjoy war and death disgust me if im honest

not saying that people are like that here but there can be a fine line that i think everyone should think about ... if we go to war you should cry for the human beings that would die on either side ... you shouldn't whoop and holler

 

[takingchances42]

Right. I thought you were saying (obliquely) that the world just ins't as you would wish it, and that someone should fix it up for you. Oh, wait! You were.

Not really. It was a fantasy, to make a point. The world is not at all as I wish it, or there would be no need for wars or soldiers or killing. Unfortunately -- the world is as it is.

 

[SINthysist]

Just balance that with the thought that sometimes if you do not go to war, ultimately many MORE people will by dead and crying on both sides...

 

[takingchances42]

The world needs warriors who understand things like restraint, compassion, and self-examination, before they go to war.

Absolutely. I totally agree. But what the world is, and what it needs to be are entirely different things.

 

[takingchances42]

sometimes war is needed but its debatable if all the wars we've had recently have been needed

also when war is needed it shouldn't relished or looked forward to people that love and enjoy war and death disgust me if im honest

not saying that people are like that here but there can be a fine line that i think everyone should think about ... if we go to war you should cry for the human beings that would die on either side ... you shouldn't whoop and holler

I am sad for the people who died in Afghanistan. I am sad for the people who will die in Iraq if the United States goes to war there. Innocent people, good people, loving wives, husbands and children, as well as forced draftees, who are the victims of their own dictatorships.

I am also sad for the people who died in the World Trade Center. Needlessly, because we knew what bin Laden was up to -- not the WTC specifically, but planning to kill large numbers of American civilians. We knew he was responsible for all the deaths at the American Embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole. But we let it continue, because it was inconvenient to stop it, and the world decided there wasn't sufficient provocation to deal with the Taliban's murderous, terroristic regime earlier.

Are we all willing to accept personal responsibility for the deaths that will likely happen in the United States or elsewhere, if we don't take action to stop Saddam Hussein and his development of weapons of mass destruction? The use of which has the potential to make the World Trade Center look like a skirmish in comparison? Because we don't think it is morally right to stop a mass murderer who is building the capability to kill again on an even larger scale?

 

[sexy-girl]

the question is also taking chances do you trust your politicians always no matter what

im not saying we shouldn't go to war in iraq but i have a lot of questions about it that aren't being answered

politicians have hidden motives and agendas not always but after all they aren't god's they can be wrong


every time someone try's to bring up a debate about iraq the british government says that its not being discussed at all its just something that might happen ... well i want the debate before it happens i want the politicians in the house of commons to be told why we might be going to war ... and i know the same thing is happening in america its always "we're not going to war yet ... dont worry about it we're talk later"

and of course if you ask why now with the media the way it is you're branded a coward or someone who won't do what is takes to preserve peace

im not a coward but im not going to support a war that is just happening because bush wants to finish the job his father started and is putting it off so he can win re election ... maybe there is a better reason than that but i want it debated

 

[takingchances42]

the question is also taking chances do you trust your politicians always no matter what

im not saying we shouldn't go to war in iraq but i have a lot of questions about it that aren't being answered

politicians have hidden motives and agendas not always but after all they aren't god's they can be wrong

(snip)
and of course if you ask why now with the media the way it is you're branded a coward or someone who won't do what is takes to preserve peace

I absolutely do not trust our politicians, either in the US, the UK, or in the rest of the world. The wars that are fought, are sometimes the wrong wars. Serbia comes to mind, as being a war that I strongly disagreed with. I do recall the press trying to whipping up the population into a jingoistic frenzy, demonizing the Serbs even as the Albanians were cast as helpless victims. I also saw it as being a racist war, that occured because the Albanian victims were white Europeans, instead of the far worse tragedies that go on around the world where the victims are non-European.

Yes, the war should be debated. With the media taking a true objective stance, instead of lining up according to whether they are politically aligned with the party in power. Talk about your impossible fantasies...

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Um, Sweden? Switzerland?

Just a note - both Sweden and Switzerland have armed forces. There have been many historical reasons why Switzerland has not been suceesfully invaded in centuries, but one of them is because almost every able bodied male there is part of the military, either active or inactive, and because many (most, all?) of those are issued selective fire assault rifles to keep in their homes and are required to maintain proficiency with them.

As for Switzerland getting a free ride from the Allies during WWII, that is not true; I believe one of the main reasons Switzerland was not invaded by Nazi Germany is because Germany needed Switzerland to act as their bankers, and that Germany had little to gain from invading Switzerland and a lot to lose.

Very similarly, Sweden was an important trading partner with Germany during WWII, as was Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Argentina. Had Germany invaded and annexed every country it would have been cutoff from a lot of foreign trade.

In short, while war is evil (sometimes a necessary evil), a country need not participate actively in war to be tainted by it's evil.