Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAurens
Ah Tree, showing his usual naivete.
It's not about invading anyone, it's about the safety, security and well being of your own people.
You know, every time one of our nations drops it's guard like this, in an effort to show that they mean no ill will towards the world, a cold slap in the face usually follows.
Not every nation on this beautiful blue sphere is as good natured as either of our countries are Tree. There are those that will take advantage of any weakness shown.
Peace is not secured by laying down and letting the bad guys trample you. It is gained by making sure that the conditions for peace exist, that is by keeping the bad dogs at bay, so the good people can flourish.
I hope that you, and those in the rest of the Western civilized democratic nations come to understand this before it is too late, and our way of life is gone.
Peace.
|
That's half the story. Peace comes by making yourself a bad choice of a target to attack, sure. Peace also comes by doing your best to not piss people off half way around the globe
So, i agree with defence but disagree with the concept of power projection on a global scale no matter where it comes from. Power projection is just a politically correct term for "telling others how to run their countries".
Countries have borders and they are there for a reason, as long as people stay on their side of the fence or at least don't intervene without an explicit invitation by the landlord in question, things will be quieter and better for everyone.
It's not a "one or the other" deal, that's just a fake and forced dilemma presented to polarize discussions and make sweeping arguments possible. If someone criticizes application of military force, does that automatically make him a tree-hugging Taliban lover? If someone accepts the need for a strong military deterrent, does that automatically make him a fascist power-mongering world dictator? The answer is no on both, but unfortunately that's how humans discuss such matters, by polarizing everything so that they can suck in the critical bystanders who prefer to have a more balanced opinion
There's a short joke story that illustrates this. Two friends, Jake and Mike, meet for a few beers and a chat one evening, after Mike has returned from the far east, where he studied various philosophies under an Asian master of the oriental culture.
"So Mike, what did you learn there?" asks Jake.
"First of all, i learned the application of reason and deductive thought by asking questions and evaluating the answers given" says Mike.
Jake: "What is this?"
Mike: "I'll give you an example to illustrate. You have an aquarium at your house right?"
J: "Yes i do"
M: "So you like fish and are fascinated by marine life in general?"
J: "Why of course."
M: "Then it's a safe bet to assume that you also like going on vacation to places with sunny beaches during summer, so that you can enjoy the sea, the sun and have a good swim."
J: "Definitely so."
M: " And when you go there, there are women in bathing suits or less that you can't help but check out, right?"
J: "Yes, of course, i'm scoping the ladies big time there."
M: "Then i can conclude that you are heterosexual"
Jake takes this newfound knowledge and goes off to impress anothe one of their buddies, Alex.
J: "Say Alex, Mike taught me the application of reason just as he was taught by a master of Asian philosophy, wanna see?"
A: "Sure, go ahead."
J: "You happen to have an aquarium at your place?"
A: "As a matter of fact i don't Jake."
J: "Too bad for you then, cause that makes you gay"
(no offense to people of different sexual preferences by the way)