There is nothing 'humanitarian' about war. But it is the greater cruelty to one's people if no one is willing to speak up on how one's value system is worth defending. The world is filled with conflicting ideologies. The problems arises when a proponent of an ideology decide to bypass the reasonable part of man and appeal to his violent side. The most visible form of dictatorship in the 20th century was communism. The communists consistently failed to appeal to the reasonable part of man and that resulted in uncounted atrocities, large and small scale, throughout the world. When resisted on the intellectual battlegrounds, they always resorted to the physical ones. Communism will not go away. As far as dictatorships goes, communism has the most experience in corporate organizing into a coherent force. We cannot afford to relax our guards just because one generation of communism failed.
But in a world filled with conflicting ideologies, confrontations are always occurring. It is the levels of confrontations that concern us, correct?
This is what communists fear: Fanatics who are against them.
Just like fanatics in South Vietnam? That went smooth.
Sure I am, just tons of fanatics in South Vietnam also. In the end they still got steamrolled. All that belief counted for nothing.
Always, you can't negotiate what you can't take by force.
You are avoiding the real question. So let me put it another way: Do you approve of violence when persuasion failed? I have found your behavior to be quite common when it comes to South Viet Nam. When confronted with the question on if resistance to communism is a legitimate issue, those who are unable to answer that question usually resort to pointing out how South Viet Nam was defeated, as if defeat legitimizes the mean: violence. If so, then we should not prosecute robbers because they managed to defeat the owners and took what they wanted.
I answer your question quite clearly. All the belief in South Vietnam against communism could not save them from defeat. They tried violence and failed miserably, even when United States deployed half a million men to help them. So much for your fanatics.
If you are referring to Iraq, keep in mind that the US has been persuading Saddam Hussein through TWO Presidential administrations. The way I see it, if a small country like Kuwait cannot defend itself against a larger aggressor, may be to prevent a Cold War style existence small countries need the assistance of larger countries to preserve the current order. Do you approve of Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?
Self preservation. Dictatorships are thugocracies that always need to gauge the abilities of others to resist their advances, especially if the foundational ideology demands the expansion and imposition of said ideology.
I understand. It is nothing more than a convenient label. What else can we use?
Conflicting ideologies ALWAYS confront. I do not understand why this is so difficult to fathom.
No, you have not. You evaded quite well. So let me ask again: Do YOU approve of violence when persuasion failed? Do YOU approve of retreat if someone resist you on intellectual grounds? Do YOU approve of taking by force when it is clear that your opponent is incapable of resistance? Those are simple questions enough and I have debated communists who are honest enough to say yes to all.
This is for everyone to see the 'logic' of communism...
