I doubt that more than 25% of the current U.S. population has even heard of Carthage. I bet that 50% of Americans have heard of Hiroshima, so those who weren’t in the know might have someone sitting next to them to explain it.
Actually I bet that number is up in the US population, after all, Carthage was mentioned in Gladiator . 
I’m glad to see that we agree on foreign policy re: Iraq then.
“will always be”
I see you don’t hold out much hope for the human race ever growing up. Give it a chance. It’s taken the last 6000 years just to hit puberty.
As for Heinlein’s quote via emarkp, when I was a kid and read that book I still saw the hole - it’s not much of a philosophical position, either. It’s just an observation of a historical trend. Violence is popular and effective, fine. Self-preservation is good, yes. However, I can’t see how avoiding do-or-die situations when possible is objectionable, not to mention striving to make them rarer overall.
Hell, sure I’ve heard of Carthage! Its in Missouri.
Why are people who want to talk about the way that the world should be, rather than passively accepting things the way that they are always mocked?
That’s possible. But for now, war is still necessary. The idea that we could have avoided war with Adolf Hitler, or could now avoid war with Al Queda, through discussion and understanding is ridiculous and potentially tragic. God save us from someone like Ms. Crow ever being elected to public office.
Avoiding violent situations when possible isn’t objectionable. But we’re not talking about Sheryl Crow saying “We should avoid war, if possible.” We’re talking about Sheryl Crow saying, “War is never the answer.” We’re talking about Sheryl Crow saying, “The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.” She’s wrong.
They’re not always mocked. But that has no bearing on this discussion because Sheryl Crow was not talking about how the world should be, she was talking about how the world is.
But I agree with those who point out that she’s very good looking. (hubba hubba)
Makes me laugh (a kind of sad, dry laugh) when people try to convince themselves that the US has enemies just because they’re free and rich. You obviously do live on another planet, as the one the everyone else lives on has plenty of far more significant reasons why people might hate the US, usually closely related to US foreign policies. If the average US citizen cared to take a bit more interest in their country’s actions in the rest of the planet they might appreciate that rather than this ridiculous “they’re just jealous” rational.
I’m not saying that the US is necessarily at fault here, and I’m not saying that the reasons given for hating the US are always justified. I’m certainly not trying to justify terrorist actions. But as long as the people of the US refuses to face the real reasons they have enemies and continue to pretend it’s all based on some kind of childish jealousy then, yes, the US will always have enemies.
Sheryl Crow is right, of course, war is never the answer, it can only ever be a short-term solution. Bashing one dictator in the middle east is not going to solve any of the problems the middle east have with America. It’s just going to result in the emergence of another figurehead and add one more grudge to a long, long list.
Cite?
Debating someone’s over-simplification with your own over-simplifiation ia a bit :dubious: (dubious)
I refer you to the OP for a case in point. My use of “the people of the US” was naturally a generalisation.
It’s a generlization we could do without. I’m as much against Bush’s motives as most people in Europe. If I wasn’t American I bet I would dislike the US for various reasons. None of which is the reason that most Europeans seem to dislike us*-generlizations such as yours. . We are not all big, fat, stupid war-mongers. A recent poll suggest that Americans do not favor a war with Iraq without UN support. Fat chance the average European would have guessed that.*
*Of course, that could be a generlization as well
"Why are beliefs that have no bearing on the real world considered noble?
Marc"
Did Ghandi have no bearing on the world? Surely we don’t have to list all the influential pacisfists in history.
Pure ideologies never work perfectly in the real world but pacifism has every right to stand with democracy,socialism or capitalism. The problem is, as it has been said "In theory there is no difference between practice and theory but in practice there is."
**
Can’t someone be a pacifist and admit that wars do solve problems from time to time? They might not like it but violence did get England off our backs, it cleared the way for westward expansion, and it knocked out all the competetion Carthage was giving Rome.
**
I’m not questioning anyone’s right to be a pacifist or believe that violence never solves anything. I just reserve my right to think such people have their heads in the cloud.
Marc
Here’s Sheryl in a much more appropriate T-Shirt.
Sheryl is right: having enemies is wrong.
But that’s not the same thing as saying that war is never the answer. Sometimes it’s the best of terrible options. Having enemies is wrong: acting according to the right values, irregardless of who is your enemy and who is not, is right.
What, pray tell, would have been a long-term, peaceful solution to the Nazi occupation of France?
Minor nitpick:
Wasn’t France occupied because they were the ones who declared war on Germany?
Exactly. Germany was reacting to French aggression, in turn brought on by the German defensive actions brought on by vicious Polish commandos storming German radio stations and border posts.
And if you believe that…
Thank you for that fine example of a strawman **Brutus{/B].
I guess that happens when people understand life. They are not understood by other people.
Or:
I guess Ghandi lives on another planet as well. As do Jesus (“hold the other cheek”) or Buddha.