As I recall there was pretty compelling evidence (published in a number of British newspapers, though mostly ignored by the US press) that the bombing of the Chinese embassy was quite intentional.
I think the quote is intended to mean “Violence is always the worst way of solving anything.” So, if you’re a private citizen, violence is almost always inferior to calling the police, talking it out, firing the guy, or whatever. Even without the safety net of a society (two men on a desert island, two superpowers), coming to an agreement is better, because then you don’t have a black eye or 30mil dead to get to the same result.
However, if you disagree so fundamentally, or are cut off from help, that no other solution is possible, you have to.
Of course, you can argue whether this meaning is true, but I think you are meant to exlude situations where you’ll definitely die without violence, etc, and if so, I tend to agree.
The problem here is that violence is not abnormal. It is supernormal, perhaps the natural state of man. People want or need things. Other people want or need the same things or opposed things. Fact of life.
If one of these groups wants their goals badly enough, there are no solutions other than violence. I suppose the only alternative to this is selfish nihilism - if no one believes in anything, there’d be no reason to go to war. of course, that would be a depressing, miserable existence, so…
Perhaps what can be reasonably argued here is that the quote “Violence never solved anything” that your mother told you all when you were little is really taken to mean, yes, you may get somewhere by hitting someone, but is the end result for the better? Only very rarely is the answer to this question yes.
Generally, since it takes at least two for there to be violence (leaving aside the question of self-mutilation or suicide), it can be safely argued that violence is only necessary in response to other violence. If the originator of some form of violence did not enact their aggression on the recipient in the first place, then there would be no need for a response. For example, if Hitler didn’t invade Poland, Austria, etc, or start killing off Jews and other so-called “undesirables”, it seems to me that the Allies would have ever needed to attack him. Whatever problems would have arisen could have been dealt with by diplomacy. But he acted violently initially, and so got what he deserved.
So I would say the quote is valid, insofar as people continue to act peacefully to each other for the greater good. Yes, there are debates on what that is, but leaving those aside, I don’t think it’s a stretch to argue that using violence rather than discussion and debate is better in the end.
Also, Dejan, welcome, and good summary. I hope you stay on the board. My father is a Bosnian Croat, and though Croats and Serbs don’t often get along (that’s just a bit of an understatement), I could care less for ethnic differences and he hates all Slavs equally . It would be really nice to see some views from your part of the world, though, and anything that contributes to the diversity on this board is a good thing. The SDMB is a brilliant place, and one can learn a lot.
:smack: :smack: :smack:
Is not better in the end, of course. Gotta proofread.
-
American War of Independance
-
American Civil War
-
World War II (where America saved the rest of the world’s ass)
The United States of America is infallible in the use of it’s superior military power. That’s all you need to know for now.
Silocke. Jingoism is the mother of many stupid statements.
-
A collection of British farmers vs. the British crown. There was no American military power in this conflict.
-
The Americans vs. The Americans. Not much chance of the Americans coming away without a win…
-
The US was not exactly the #1 military power in the world when we entered WWII.
Who saved whos ass? All in all, I have to disagree with your assessment.
But that’s just another form of violence, no? You’re calling the professionals in the expectation that they will use violence if needed.
He’s a Croat and “he hates all Slavs equally”? Including Croats?
I used to be a pacifist. I even read A. J. Muste and all that. Then I went to visit the Anne Frank house in Holland to confirm my views about the evils of war. Saw something funny there. Her dad had a map of Europe showing the advances of the American and British forces. They were quick enough for him too slow for Anne.
Maybe if there hadn’t been so many pacifists in Great Britain between the wars Anne Frank would be a 70 something broad in Amsterdam playing with the grandkids or whatever.
Remember that violence is the last resort of the incompetent. The competent use violence well before their is any need for last resorts.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah…!
No, really, that’s probably real close to the truth of the matter.
Martin Hyde
Our involvement in Somalia was not an “invasion,” but more to your point, it was not Bill Clinton.
Troops were sent into Somalia by George Bush Sr before he left office. They were already there when Clinton was sworn in.
For some reason I see this meme a lot from right wingers. I even saw Bill O’Reilly get this wrong once. But facts are facts. Bill Clinton did not send troops into Somalia.
I seem to be repeating this a lot lately, but I read a quote (I forget by who) to the effect that: “People sleep warm and safe in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf.”
Okay, I just Googled it and it appears that it is arguably attributed to George Orwell, although Orwell scholars disavow that he said it. And the wording is slightly different, i.e. “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
A lot of those who fought on an American side would have been born and raised in America. Of course most of them were descended from the British, but they weren’t British themselves. There were also plenty of American Indians fighting, on both sides.
They are absolutely accurate.
Peace is always preferable. Every effort to secure peace should be made. But every once in a while, there comes a time when you just have to kick ass and take names in order to ensure that peace.
And when that time comes, you have to do it with 100% conviction and committment.
Yes, even Croats. I exaggerated there, hence the , but there is a grain of truth in the statement. It’s more of a lack of patience he has for them, or a general distaste. If you ever have to deal with people from the former Yugoslavia for any extended length of time, you will come to understand that logic and reason are far less preferable to screaming and vitriol. I personally have no grudge, since I was born and raised here and did not grow up among the deeply ingrained hatreds of the Slavic peoples (of the former Yugoslavia), but my father has been rebuked and criticized and even “cast out”, if you will, by his ethnic brethren enough to reinforce his existing distaste for them. There’s a reason he is here and not there.