Using force for problem solving is a lifestyle nowadays.
We are actually intensively taught to do that, to get used to it or just not to react on it, by media, watching news that legitimate various wars on various enemies and watching movies that include weapon and force usage as a regular motive!
This opening line already shows you have a skewed view. Force is the distraction tactic used by those in power. Why? Misinformation passes along easier based on emotion.
Again, comes from a skewed view. Not surprising.
Edit: Title- is the use of force a rational choice? At times Yes.
I sat and thought about it and I had to consider the "kind" of force being used against me and then I thought wait, is it a beneficial or detrimental force?
If MY life, or the life of a loved one was in jeopardy, I would use ALL necessary "force" to DESTROY, not JUST stop, the force.
If it were a beneficial force, whatever it might be, I might, forcefully attempt to attain more.
Sure! To use force must be a rational (Having or exercising the ability to reason) decision.
Force for protection or gain has been used by man since he was "engendered."
Man is a puny little creature that has used whatever force available to survive.
He is genetically programmed to use force!
You are right. But I don't think it is something we are being taught. I view it as a reflection of what we are. Man is violent by nature.
The entertainment industry is simply offering a product they know they can sell. In more ways than not, men romanticize violence. Their favorite movies are about war and conflict. Their choice of video games involve death and destruction.
The news media is little different. There are higher ratings with violence in the mix as opposed to a 'feel good story'.
And I think that since men glorify the soldier as the truest patriots this is responsible, in part, for why our government is not taken to task more vehemently by the people in this country when they make questionable decisions that result in 'boots on the ground'.
But, I do think there are times when force is necessary and rational.
Using force to capture or kill Bin Laden who masterminded the murder of 3000 innocent Americans was certainly rational in terms of American political considerations. It's hard to say what the effect on terrorism against the US and European countries will be of killing Bin Laden. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle with active terrorist cells in Yemen, Somalia and throughout Europe. Achieving a peaceful settlement between Israel and Palestine might be the most helpful single event to counter terrorism.
"Achieving a peaceful settlement between Israel and Palestine might be the most helpful single event to counter terrorism."
That's the propaganda the anti-Israel movement has been pushing. It won't stop anything, except perhaps outright nuclear confrontation, sooner rather than later.
What they mean by Middle East peace is, ERADICATE Israel.
Where would they go, if they decided to just leave and not be annihilated?
What would you do?
My impression, based on statements by terrorists, is that our relationship with Israel is a significant motivator of terrorism against the United States and other allies of Israel.
Al Qaeda: Statements
and Evolving Ideology (CRS Report to Congress)
"Targeting Israel. Variations in the intensity and prominence of Al Qaeda
leaders’ anti-Israeli rhetoric have fueled suggestions that Al Qaeda’s commitment to
the Palestinian cause waxes and wanes depending on the network’s need for support
— becoming more pronounced during periods when Al Qaeda’s actions have
alienated supporters or as part of a more outright ideological appeal. Bin Laden has
addressed these charges personally and argued that support for the Palestinians and
all Muslims is and will remain essential to Al Qaeda’s cause, which is the
mobilization of the entire Muslim world in resistance to perceived U.S. aggression.48
Other Al Qaeda figures have alluded to the desirability of attacks on and
eventual conflict with Israel. In January 2006, Al Zarqawi claimed responsibility for
a rocket attack on northern Israel, which he claimed was personally ordered by
Osama Bin Laden. He described the attack as “the beginning of a blessed action to
strike the Zionist enemy at the heart of its existence.”49 Ayman Al Zawahiri stated
in March 2007 that “Palestine was a land of Islam and it is an individual duty for
every Muslim to liberate it.”50 In April 2007, Islamic State of Iraq leader Abu Omar
al Baghdadi stated that the conflict in Iraq has “paved the way for invading the
Jewish state and the restoration of Jerusalem.”51 Al Qaeda operational leader Abu
Layth Al Libi also has claimed that “the preparations we [Al Qaeda] make and all the
fighting in the cause of God we carry out in the east and west is preparation and
training for fighting the Jews in the Al Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem].”
Are you opposed to peace and security for Israel and to a Palestinian state? You are the one who is a victim of propaganda, in my opinion.
I can't imagine those parties agreeing on anything that will result in true peace. And I'm afraid I don't think it would affect our problems with terrorism. The hatred of the west runs deep.
But I hope you're right.
As to Bin Laden? You're right. Only time will tell if that was the best move for all around. I would have played it differently, starting right after 9/11; but no one asked my opinion.
Use of force in certain situations is very rational. I know a lot of people think or wish that all problems can be solved by sitting down, discussing, and coming to agreement.This is a total dream in that man (and woman) seek power and control, by nature, in most situations. Would sitting down with Bin Laden, and asking him to stop killing Americans, accomplished anything?
Unfortunately, killing bin laden will not stop terrorists thinking of and about killing more Americans? Terrorists as well as Anti-terrorists use force as they say "with a reason"! They both fight their reasons out using force. It is interesting that when a powerful nation needs oil, the terrorists appear in the context...
And how would you respond to force? Negotiate?
Responding to force, brings another counter response by force, and everything can go to hell...
Maybe we can think about what causes someone's animosity and hate?
We could listen to their reasons, no matter how irrational they are?
As a great nation, America disposes of great intellectual and intelligence resources? It seems impossible that no one can think of an elegant non-destructive way to solve a problem...
One more thing. When some terrorists take hostages, isn't it usual to get a negotiator around? Because, peoples lives our in danger.
Terrorists like bin laden, take whole nations as hostages. Why would it be a different thing?
But you're not answering the question. How would YOU respond to force. If you were president in December 1941, or in September 2001, how would you have responded to the aggression?
If there was honest proactive thinking (before 09 01) there would be no need to respond with force.
This is what most people are too lazy to do. To think before something bad happens.
What you do is what you should expect to be done on you.
How would someone who smokes like a factory respond when get cancer?
Well, there is no way to respond on that. One shouldn't have smoked ever?
Or, one can quit smoking when become aware of the bad influence on health!
Sitting down with Bin Laden - no, but not actively pursuing violent policies in Islamic countries in the first place - YES.
Violence is normally the end result of overwhelming greed or abject failure. Most wars can be seen to start in actions well before the hostilities begin - actions that are often hard to determine in term of right and wrong after the event.
Agreed, but back to the point, this does not imply that Violence is not rational.
Yes it does, it directly states that violence is the result of doing things wrong in the first place - normally because the parties rely on violence to sort things out. US foreign policy being a case in point.
Rational stands for CREATIVE more than for DESTRUCTIVE.
I don't want to be a president. I just try to hear different opinions.
There is no straightforward answer to your question, because it's not a psycho-test question from a magazine...
Oh come now, you're trying to slip out the side door.
Why is it that, people who think the world and mankind should be non-violent, do not want to be put in the position of having to decide the appropriate response to violence?
Gandhi fits the profile you are putting up - I guess he is able to answer it better than any of the lesser people here ?
Just like they will not come up with a budget to compete with the ryan plan! they just say it will kill Social Security and Medicare, which It does not, anyone 55 and over it doesn't touch. But they have not introduced a budget and refusing to give a solution. That is what many do. They throw out talking points but do not have an answer or solution. Sad
Yes, of course. There are times when naked violence, up to and including death, is the only viable option.
Would any amount of talk have stopped flight UA flight 93 on 911? Can you stop a 10 year old child, covered in explosives and with his finger on the trigger while running into a crowd of shoppers by shouting platitudes at him? Or a speeding car seconds away from that same crowd that cannot hear you at all?
On a larger scale, would talk have stopped Hitler from continuing the holocaust? Had we ceded all of Europe and western Asia to him, would he have stopped or merely paused and entrenched further before taking the rest of the world? Could we even talk rationally to the Japanese? Their society was completely foreign to ours and we really had no idea of what drove them.
Recommend believes the problem starts further back in time, with failed policies, but even this is not always true. A great deal of the problem in the middle east starts not with western policies but with western values and way of life. Muslims look at our standard of living, our freedoms and our way of life and want it. This sets up a massive dichotomy in their society, with leaders such as bin Laden then declaring that Americans must all be killed as the only way to maintain his version of Islam. To assume that we caused this somehow is simplistic - it would have happened with no contact at all but for peaceful trade. I don't remember any negative actions taken towards Germany except failed efforts to stop it's expansion into other occupied lands, but WWII still happened.
There are people in this world that understand only the language of violence. There are also times and circumstances that dictate violence as the only real possibility due to lack of time. Mistakes and misunderstandings can happen in negotiations and talk, but unless BOTH sides are willing to back off and reconsider, try again, violence can happen. It only takes one, not two, to start a violent conflict, but it takes two to prevent it or stop it.
You can't choose a spot in time and argue that everything after it would happen anyway.
The most obvious incorrect part of your post that even you should be able to see is Hitler and WW2 - the whole nazi episode arose from WW1 and the crippling sanctions put on Germany. A quick look at your history book would show you that this is the reason defeated countries are put back on their feet again by the victors such as Japan after the second war - as a direct lesson from the 2nd world war !
to bypass the whole issue of America's crusade that provokes the 'terrorist' reaction that you misread as the unlikely envy of your debased culture by the overly-moral Muslims, and jump straight to Israel. Without a serious turnaround in the rhetoric, aggression and disruption of all places around Israel you could at some point be looking at a smoking hole surrounded by unihabitable lands - a situation that might be avoided by simple grown up discussion and a reduction in the aggression and mistreatment of the countries in the area.
The answer: "It depends." As St. Thomas said: "Never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish."
That said there is no question that the US has been much too quick since WWII to use military force on issues with other countries that might better have been addressed by diplomacy, sanctions or other non-military means.
Ralph, I tend to agree, but even that is often open to question. Should we have given Saddam a couple of months or years in Kuwait to pillage, kill and steal before taking any military action? I doubt the people there would have agreed that that would have been a good solution. To allow violence to continue while attempting diplomacy is often not only non-productive but can and will hurt a great many people.
In my opinion Bush I did exactly the right thing in Kuwait and Bush II did exactly the wrong thing in Iraq. That's why I'm not willing to say that military action is never justified. However, as Norman Solomon demonstrated the US over-reacted to Cold War fears of world communist domination and, as a result, greatly over-used military action in the second half of the 20th century.
I agree with you. Kuwait was the right thing to do. Iraq MAY have been as well IF Bush actually believed there were WMD's, but that's a mighty big if and a subject for another day. I also agree that the military has been badly over used in the last 60 years. Pretty much since we became a major player in the world of force.
It's the rare Kuwait's of the world that tell me that there are times that violence, even in the case of war, is necessary. It is, or should be, the reason we keep our military.
Can you explain the national interests of America in Kuwait or Iraq?
What would that be, besides searching for bin laden?
I wouldn't believe in a human reaction, because too many innocent people got killed by the human reaction.
If your neighbor and friend is robbed or attacked will you do what you can to stop it? Kuwait is our (political) friend. And there is always oil - whether we like it or not it is necessary then and now for a functioning America.
We all know the excuse for invading Iraq the second time. True or not, or even whether it was believed by the powers that be, we know the excuse.
Kuwait was a Middle East ally of the U.S. and a significant supplier of oil. Iraq provided a counter weight to Iran and was an ally of the US until Saddam Hussein over-reached and attacked Kuwait. We stopped him but wisely stopped short of attacking Iraq. Why Bush Jr. invaded Iraq is not entirely clear. What is clear is that his invasion was needless, foolish and very costly in dollars and in that the Shiite majority will be likely to make Iraq an ally or satellite of Iran. Moreover, Bush focused on Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11 and posed no threat to the US, and put our effort to capture Bin Laden on the back burner with the result that we have been fighting two wars at great cost for nearly ten years.
People may think from my past posts that I favor violence. I don't, I am after protection for majority.
Current issue: how long will the world debate, and negotiate, and talk with that madman in Iran before they stop him from getting nuclear capabilities. Will violence be necessary? Will anyone criticize such action?
Best guess; the world will talk and negotiate another 5 - 10 years, at which time a city and it's people will be lost from another country.
At that point violence will be necessary and acceptable to prevent future losses and the recriminations will begin. We didn't do enough negotiation. We didn't say the right words. We didn't try to understand. We didn't make enough concessions.
As you say, I hate violence and will go to great lengths to avoid it. I also recognize that there are times and people that require violence for a solution.
Actually, I don't think Israel will let it go on that long since they are in the crosshairs. And I think we will be backing them under the table.
You may be right - Israel is an obvious target.
On the other hand, perhaps Israel should just sit tight, never responding to the violence directed against it, until there are only a few of them left. At that point they could all pack up and move to Antarctica. Avoid all violence as unnecessary.
Israel is, to me, in a most unenviable position with only a most tenuous claim to it's nation and the rest of the area not really recognizing that claim at all. At the same time, if I lived there I would be most willing to meet violence with anything needed, including more violence, to maintain my nation, life and family.
I didn't realise at first that this was just another kill all the Muslims thread - under cover of an attempted justification of violence. Still out on the Bush crusade I guess ?
This wasn't imagined to be an argue, neither on historical nor on contemporary events elucidation basis.
I notice that the arguments appearing here are mostly repeated brain washing sentences from well known tv stations.
Let us assume that the nations around the world learn much different histories and watch diametrically opposed tv reports on what happens.
So, there are too many truths to be used as a good foundation for a dialogue.
The only thing that is uniquely true is: people are dying, homes are being destroyed and no one wins.
(Actually, the ones who win are: weapon industries, drug dealers, humanitarian aid dealer, war profiteers...)
I think there is a way to figure out what brings one to a baseball bet beating phase.
Maybe it's only vanity, and vanity is the easier way for a lazy mind.
"I think there is a way to figure out what brings one to a baseball bet beating phase."
You are assuming that the party bringing the bat is rational by your definition. They may have different desires, needs or wants, but they are rational and willing to negotiate.
This is not always true - there are times when one party is not rational and is not interested in any negotiation whatsoever or only in negotiation that is overwhelmingly one sided. It's why we keep a military (at least in theory).
Bringing the question down to a micro (personal) level, there is a distinction under the law between rational and irrational use of force.
Ironically, rational use of force is punished more harshly.
Irrational use of force is somehow excused (if not exonerated).
If you premeditated it, you're more guilty than if you just let your anger management problem get the best of you.
But when we're talking nation-on-nation, we employ reason to try to avoid or minimize violence. Think Bay of Pigs and a zillion other examples of negotiation vs. than military response.
It's always interesting to see people say "don't use force", but then defend the imprisonment of tax evaders.
Actually they(The Government) Tells you that use of force is "Against The Law" But what does the government do when a crime or dissent is committed ,,,They use force, Hypocrites. The Freedom WE HAD came by use of force. Remember that when a TSA agent has their hands down your kids or wife's pants.
To America's aggression policy defenders:
Are you aware that most of world hates america because of such behavior? Even US "allies". Because, when you give them "freedom" you take oil, gold, diamonds etc from them, so they become free slaves.
If you want to be free, you will have to be my slave!
Hypocrisy's in the air...
And as soon as someone attacks them they call the GOOD OLE USA to help them out! How come you believe force is the only thing ever used? Many times situations have been worked out. The cold war as an example, no nukes ever went off. As far as the middle east is concerned, I'm sorry these people do not want peace! Anyone who says otherwise is just plain foolish. Even after BN speech the Palestinian leader said it was an act of war? where did he get that out of that speech?? They need excuses and do not want to advance in the world. They want to live by stoning, and women being $hit. Killing all Non-Muslims. etc... people need to stop making excuses for these people they are the evil ones. Yes not all are evil and want to better themselves but a big portion do not want change and want Sharia Law! I make my own decisions based on what I see and hear from the horses mouth. Force is necessary at times.
"Those who are not willing to defend freedom with their lives, will surely lose their lives in bondage!"
I don't think a big portion of Muslims in the US want Sharia law. A tiny percentage would be more like it. And outside the US my impression is that only a minority want Sharia law. I haven't seen any published figures on this. If you have I'd be interested to see them.
40% alone in the UK want sharia law! what does that tell you! we are not talking about the USA as we know we even have muslims here who want sharia law. People need to get the wool out of their eyes and wake up!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … in-UK.html
Tut Danny, I've told you about the torygraph before, and it doesn't help you misquoting even them.
The report actually says that 40% of Muslims in the UK support the idea of Sharia law in largely Muslim areas.
And it doesn't actually say whether they want Sharia in its entirety, or enough for them to practice their religion.
here is more! please with the spinning already
Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK - Telegraph
Feb 19, 2006 ... Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of ... The most startling finding is the high level of support for applying sharia law in ... Islamic law is used in large parts of the Middle East, ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Poll-reveals-40 … in-UK.html - Similar - Add to iGoogle
American Thinker: Radical Islam or Mainstream Islam?
Feb 2, 2011 ... Muslims in the Middle East desire sharia law and an Islamic ummah .... Timimi is supported by CAIR, was their "man of the year," and is ...
www.americanthinker.com/.../radical_isl … am_is.html - Cached
How can 83% of Egyptian Muslims support Sharia law when Democracy ...
4 answers - Mar 9
You can''t have both a Democracy and Sharia law. In other words- it appears the majority protesting in the middle east want a THEOCRACY LIKE ...
answers.yahoo.com › ... › Politics & Government › Politics - Cached
Sharia Law Not Supported In Indonesia
Jul 29, 2010 ... Sorry, Arizona, You Can't Secede Stop, Go In Middle East Peace → ... Indonesia contains the largest number of Muslims in the world. It is not in favor of sharia law. The bottom line is that most Muslims are not in favor ...
theimpudentobserver.com/.../sharia-law-not-supported-in-indonesia/ - Cached
Couric, Muslims, and African Americans | Mind Your Own Damn ...
Jan 3, 2011 ... Muslims face public anger but they have on their side both the naive Courics of ... of a Muslim is what they hear on the news about radicals in the middle east. ... and the percentage of Muslims who support Sharia Law. ...
mindyourowndamnbusinesspolitics.com/.../couric-muslims-and-african-americans/ - Cached
Radical Islam or Mainstream Islam?
22 posts - 18 authors - Last post: Feb 2
Not only do Muslims in the Middle East desire Sharia law and an ... They have the support, money, knowledge, and most importantly the desire ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2667215/posts - Cached
US Must Never Succumb To Sharia Law
The poll found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the ... of third world people from the Middle East wrote a book: "Camp of the Saints" ...
www.rense.com/general83/sharia.htm - Cached - Similar
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Do they actually vote on Sharia Law? I must have missed that episode on "I've Been Such A Fool". I heard that a handful of guys crams it down everybody else's throats. Well, darn, if they vote on it, it sure sounds pretty democratic. This is an example of Sarcasm.
Interesting, but the survey doesn't go to the points I made, i.e., 1. that American Muslims aren't advocating sharia here in the U.S.; and 2. That most or many Muslims even in the Middle east don't want Sharia for themselves. What the religious Muslims in Detroit think is appropriate for Muslims in other countries is not relevant. Practices wrt Sharia, hijab, women working and holding office vary widely throughout the Muslim world. As I recall Indonesia has the largest populstion of Muslims of any country, and a woman, Megawati Sukarnoputri was Indonesia's elected President from 2001 to 2004.
Jihad Watch is not a reliable source of information on Muslims and their religion.
You do make me laugh Danny, you constantly accuse me of spinning and yet you rely on sources that are pure spin and then spin even more by missing out lumps of quote.
I think that's called hypocrisy.
Have you actually read anything of Sharia Law?
Do you really think that all the universe must act by the rules of western civilization democracy? Well, it is right against the principles of democracy?
One day, we will try to bring democracy to some Salamurians from Proxima Centauri planet.
Anyway it is still not decided what democracy is? Sometimes it's bombing the hell out of someone, and sometimes it's human rights.
This is the point where this kinds of discussion leave the common sense area.
The problem is that too much people believe media and information sources rather than their own eyes. " Hm, I'm not sure it's raining till I see a weather report on tv..." Like we live in a deep hole underground.
Speaking of using force: Little, miserable, poor country called Serbia, arrested Ratko Mladic(accused for horrible crimes in Bosnia) without invading Avganistan! Serbia's intelligence agency did a great job, located him, a no one even knew it happened until it was reported in media. Not a single gunshot was heard!
The man didn't even say "don't"!
What do you think about that!?
by NaomiRuthJohnavid5 years ago
This question particularly goes out to mothers or rather women, More specifically,those who have kids,desire kids,Work with Kids,Have a passion for Kids,Women. based on a recent survey I and a companion Carried out on...
by Mikel G Roberts7 years ago
Terrorists use threats of violence to get what they want. Most modern terrorists believe they are doing the "Will of God"... Do you believe God needs violence and threats to get humanity to do what God intends...
by Sushmita2 years ago
I was checking out this Hub on Whoopi Goldberg and 'The View' and came upon Whoopi and Baver walking out of the show, on the remark of Bill O'Reilly that 'Muslims killed us on 9/11'. I then went looking and found...
by thirdmillenium8 months ago
Does Islam contain some doctrines that make it mandatory for all Muslims to kill/destroy/annihilate followers of other religions/atheists/agnostics? Some say it does. Some others say it was not originally in the...
by greeneyesH19827 years ago
I bring this up because some people think that the united states is trying to ban this altogether and think that it will result in more crime from children being allowed to get away with more.... what are your thoughts...
by gulnazahmad6 years ago
If western media, politicians and other public say that Muslims are terrorists and Islam is a terror spreading religion why don't they look at their own history and present scenario. If killing innocent people is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.