Welcome to Gaia! ::

Let me expound briefly on the concept of peace.

Peace is a wonderful thing. Real peace. The peace described by the term "shalom" in Hebrew. It can mean a lot of things, much like "aloha". Namely, it means the following: Completeness, wholeness, health, peace, welfare, safety soundness, tranquility, prosperity, perfectness, fullness, rest, harmony, the absence of agitation or discord.

To me, peace is not the absence of open war. Peace is tranquility most of all, in the military-political sense. There was nothing "peaceful" about the Soviet Union, just as there was nothing peaceful about pre-invasion Taliban Afghanistan, or Saddam's Iraq. There is nothing peaceful about the situation in Indonesia, which is not only in a state of devastation, but also in a longstanding state of civil insurrection. I would even argue that South Central Los Angeles is not at peace.

I've stated numerous times that I am pro-war, yet now I am stating that I am for peace. How can this be? Simple. There are so many places on God's green earth that are already lacking peace. How can invading Iraq and removing the source of so much anti-shalom (the best way I know to describe it, perhaps Hebrew has a word for it, but I don't know much Hebrew) possibly be contrary to the concept of peace? It seem to me that war where there was no peace only differs in the openness with which it is conducted.

Saddam's regime was no peace by any stretch of the word. By openly warring, the chance for peace (or at least less un-peace) has greatly increased. For what chance of removing Saddam's death and terror was there, what chance for the people of Afghanistan to break out of their Taliban-imposed oppression, and what chance to prevent terrorists like al Qaida from creating more un-peace in our own country would we have?

I'm not here to promote the 1984 "war is peace" saying. But what I am here to say is that war where there was no peace is not a significant change of status, but can in some cases be a big step in the right direction. When looking at a war, one must look at the alternative before saying it is wrong. Surely not one person reading this can honestly tell me that we should have just let the Nazis have the world without a fight, or that Russia should have let Napoleon have them. For evil men to triumph, all that must happen is that good men do nothing.

To quote Ann Coulter when asked if the War in Iraq is right:

Q: Is it right, the Iraqi conflict?

A: No, it's wrong. The rabid savages who are fighting American troops should give up immediately.

'To secure peace is to prepare for war...'

Military strength has always historically been a path to peace...how else would the Pax Romana have lasted so long...? Despite what the liberals think, war and the preparations required are integral to peace.

And, how can we appreciate peace in our time if we never know war...?

I agree in most cases. In Iraq, more than 10 failed years of warless attempts to avoid having to go to such extremes led to war. In Afghanistan, however, there were no other options. We had to say what we meant and back it with immediate action.

You speak as if you were dead. You will see it too.

Every generation who is still alive will pay that price with blood. The people who would make your fears reality if the opportunity arises don't care how old, young, male or female a person is. Be it N. Korea and China with nukes, or terrorists who kill indiscriminately.

I hate to be a downer like that, but I freely state that I am more interested in preventing it than living through the mistake of letting it happen.

Bob, dear, I do believe they would all wet themselves long before anything got started.... xp

I think most people in the guild will agree with this...it has fairly solid logic.

I am actually suprised to see someone doesn't agree with it.

War is a nessecary part of keeping a nation safe. There are some nations that don't have wars (a girl told me Brazil hasn't had a war in a long time...she said we have too many wars) but America bears the war burden for all those countries (non-contributers from South America, Mexico, Canada, and of course Europe) that b***h at us. A tsunami hits and we are expected to give tons of aid (we should, but we aren't obligated to) and a Frenchman telling us what to do is insulting (I've studied France a bit...I'll make a post about them in a minute).

We need war to have peace. If we (America) don't fight, evil will win.

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing" (probably not exactly right)

Why? I said non-contributers...not all nations from...