Live reports on the war

Well you don't really have a choice then do you? I mean, where could you find someone else "lesser" than you to pull it?

Thank you. <rubs hands together>

Aye. I think that forums, chat, and generally the internet (and communication in general) can do much to help us understand each other better.

It's hard to wage war when you read a forum filled with people saying things like. "That last missle just missed my apartment build. Sadly, I think it hit my sister's."

<shakes head> I personally believe in war for only two things: Self defense (pre-emtive strikes DO count), and expansion.

For those that don't like expansion, I really have to agree. I just think it's a VIABLE reason. Any time you fight for other reasons, your are just throwing money and lives into the void never to be seen again.

Personally, I think we need a terminal case of empathy to infect the human race. Sure, it will slow our ability to advance in some ways, but I figure we'll be better off being happy than agressive.

<Waves a hand> It's over. Catch up!

Thank you so much! I can't believe how long that horrible post was around in the thread. I've actually never seen anything like it in the SL forums before.

~Ulrika~

Huh? There's not a war in history that hasn't been either in response to direct aggression; preemptive and sold with the argument that it's in defense; or for expansion. Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say that you believe in war without the superfluous qualifications?

~Ulrika~

That strikes me as a very dangerous argument. You could argue, for example that Germany was attempting to expand - both it's land and influence in Europe in the 1930's. Or Japan in Eastern Asia. By stating that it is a valid reason to go to war appears to give a justification to them both. Are you sure that is what you meant?

I am terribly sorry. I did NOT make myself clear.

I thought the word VIABLE would make it so, but the fault is entirly mine. I was saying they are the only kinds of wars that have the ability to improve the lot of the culture that initates them. NOT that I think any war is a good thing.

I'm thinking technically, not morally.

For example, wars can be used to polarize a nation against a common foe, expand territory, or even take resources. These are VIABLE wars, though the polarize example above backfires as much a it helps.

Did that make my statement clearer?

I still worry that the word viable as you use it (traditionally meaning capable of sustaining or creating life or growth) is a very poor choice of word, it does suggest (even if only by inference) that you see war on the grounds of expansion as a positive thing. Whether you mean that in moral or economic terms is a moot point.

<shakes head>

And that means what, exactly?

The fact is, it CAN be viable. It CAN be positive for one side, just as hunting and killing an animal for fur and food can be useful. (No I'm NOT compairing people to animals. I was just pointing out that violence CAN reward those that initate it, regardless of if we like it or not...)

History has proven war is both a useful tool and a terrable price to pay. It all depends on if you are on the winning side.

Now as to my personal feelings on war? I think it's controlled by a few maniacs on both sides that are having a pissing contest and using the troops as weapons. I preatty much hate the concepts of modern warfare that allows sides to destroy their enemy with nothing more than the push of a button, and reduce the horrors of the wounded and dying to 'the number of casulties'.

Regardless, it still comes down to this. While in a war, everyone loses.

But some lose less than others.

Not to get off topic or anything, but I am curious if anyone has actually been reading the posts in the forum I mentioned in the OP?

Anyone else find it creepy to read about missles flying overhead or that bombs are falling not far away and then to see by the time stamp that it was only 2 mins ago?

Agreed totally. I sent a report citing the offensive "more potent than gas" comment.

I've read some of the posts from the forum you posted with Dovster and the Lebanese guy.

Interesting thing comparing what they say to what appears on the various news outlets.

Briana Dawson

All of the rhetoric and blabbing about historical causes of the current situation means nothing. Israel is not interested in expanding it's current land base and is just asking to be left alone while it's neighbors are shouting "Death to all Jews".

What on earth do you expect the Israelites to do? Go to the gas chambers willingly?

A guy I know is stuck in Lebanon:

http://karimhamasni.blogspot.com/

After reading some of that blog I now know why groups like Hamas and Hebollah will always have a foot hold in the communities.

Instead of getting angry at the government representatives that keep causing Israel to drop bombs on Lebanon, they stay angry at the Israeli's and increase their support for the terrorist groups.

Briana Dawson

That's exactly how it works in the US as well. It's just human nature.

Those with hawkish militaristic views are similar to republicans in the US and those with more moderate views are liberals. Now you see what conservative, hawkish views look like externally.

~Ulrika~

Uhhh, what? He doesn't support Israel OR Hezbollah.

And I don't blame anyone for being mad at Israel. Instead, you are called anti-semites if you say Israel is allowed to do whatever they want. Which, they are.

There is a MUCH bigger plan here than anyone is aware of. It is backed by the United States, and probably some other western countries.

If you don't believe that, then you are a fool.

The person should get mad at both in my opinion. They need to be angry at Hezbollah for provoking Isreal's wrath and they need to be mad at Isreal for acting like they are, both sides are to blame for this.

"Instead of getting angry at the government representatives that keep causing Israel to drop bombs on Lebanon"

How can you "cause" someone to drop a bomb? Sole responsibility for violence lies with the person committing it, or the person who ordered it.

The kidnappers are wrong for kidnapping, and Israel's response is wrong for perpetuating the unpleasant situation in the middle east now. For every civilian killed, there are dozens of relatives and young men who will, for the rest of their lives, have a reason to hate Israel.

Neither side seems eager to secure peace. From their actions, I'd suggest both sides must have a vested interest in continued hostility.

Musuko.

LOL, yea, believe your dribble or be a fool?

Briana "Fool" Dawson

This is kind of weird but. If someone invaded the USA and killed innocent people, would you side with the terrorist group, or with the opposing faction?

I don't think the Lebanese have much of a choice.

You sound absolutely clueless. According to you, "there is a much bigger plan than ANYONE is aware of", and of course you know about this plan.

And people who don't believe you are fools....

LOL

Briana Dawson

So why are you shooting down his opinion?

Well Jim. If some faction took control of Tijuana, Mexico, set up missiles in the streets and started launching them into the U.S., why OF COURSE these people would side with the terrorist group since they would find some reason to blame their own country for instigating the attacks. It's like some perverse form of liberal patriotism.

Briana Dawson

If you can't tell, IM QUOTING HIM AGAIN. NOT agreeing with him.

Briana Dawson