VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:32:45 10/08/04 Fri
Author: UBFree
Subject: Re: Oppression
In reply to: Mike K. 's message, "Oppression" on 03:37:46 10/08/04 Fri

I think you misuderstand the American concept of peace through strength. Americans hold to peace through strength not in order to dominate the world but in order to protect its own people. Peace through strength does not mean oppression. Peace through strength means that you maintain a strong military ready to fight when your country is attacked. Peace through strength is a deterrent to war. (What rational enemy attacks a stronger opponent?)
For most of American history, Americans have been conservative isolationists at heart. Sometimes I wonder if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor if America would have entered WWII at all! And without American assitance what would have been the outcome of WWII? It was only AFTER WWII that America came of out its isolationism and began to engage the world more fully in Foreign affairs. After WWII, we practiced a policy of "containment" agaisnt Soviet communism. Again this is different then "peace through strength".

What Bush is practicing is the doctrine of "Pre-Emptive strike". Now we can debate about this if you want? (But its different then peace through strength)




> I think that Bush held on to Ronald Reagan's motto
>of "peace through strength". The rest of the world
>hates Bush? Good! It means that he's not backing down
>because of people's opinions. That's something that
>most politicians don't have--convictions.
>
>First of all, the people who have real convictions do
>not need to resent to violence to make others submit
>to them. Even people like Ee Chang Woo managed to get
>loyalty without physical oppression.
>
>If the motto is "peace through strength", then you're
>saying "Oppression is the way to go".
>And - Saddam was an oppressor which means he needed to
>be removed.
>How come that for Bush, oppression is acceptible?
>Saddam oppressed Iraq.
>Bush wants to oppress the entire world, and you say
>it's okay?
>
>If oppression is the reason for removing Saddam from
>power, then it's also a reason to remove Bush, a
>thousand times so.
>
>Oppression is not a solution, and "peace through
>power" is merely a euphemism for exactly that:
>oppression.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.