There is the "Anti (this) War (now)" position. And there is the "Anti-Most Wars Most of the Time" position. And there is Tim Blair's "Pro War All the Time" position:
now right-wing monks are launching themselves at Sri Lankan peaceniks:
A scuffle broke out Thursday between saffron-robed monks and anti-war demonstrators at peace rally in Sri Lankan capital.
About six or seven monks from a right-wing Buddhist faction had stormed the stage during a peace rally attended by about 1,000 people in the capital, Colombo, shouting pro-war slogans, an AP reporter at the scene said.
It's as though everyone's taken a dose of Sod Off Swampy. Excellent.
Sri Lanka's civil war has been going for 23 years now. The government has not been able to defeat the rebels in that time, but Blair thinks they should continue the war instead of making peace.
The government has not been able to defeat the rebels in that time, but Blair thinks they should continue the war instead of making peace.
I dunno. I read the wiki page you linked to on the situation and it looks pretty hopeless. Seems like the LTTE is doing their best to keep it going, so what would be the alternative?
The ceasefire held for several years and seems to have been a deal both sides could live with. And it seems to have broken down over something trivial. I'd suggest restoring the conditions of the ceasefire. But I guess that makes me a "peacenik".
Peace is great, but not at all cost. Can one side trust the either? Will the "peace" be used by one or both sides to regroup, rearm, and then start the whole thing over again? It's been tried in the past and failed. Has it ever worked? I dunno. But when a conflict is inspired by simple hatred on one or both sides, there is probably no desireable solution.
Just see the Middle East. As long as the one side harbors and nurtures blind hatred for the other, there will be no peace.
Well Ben, having lived in Muenster and knowing a bit about the Thirty Years War, let me tell you there are a whole lot of Peaces that are better than any War, and damn few Wars that were worth fighting. Of course, your attitude is often determined by how close to the meat grinder you are going to get.
Well Ben, having lived in Muenster and knowing a bit about the Thirty Years War, let me tell you there are a whole lot of Peaces that are better than any War, and damn few Wars that were worth fighting. Of course, your attitude is often determined by how close to the meat grinder you are going to get.
The peace might be nice while it lasts, but what if that leads to worse war when it's over?
"If, on this Earth one moment of peace would I find, then unto that moment I would say: 'linger awhile, so fair thou art'"!
The peace might be nice while it lasts, but what if that leads to worse war when it's over
Pathetic.
Best,
D
I think Tim L is being unfair to Tim B here.
It isn't necessarily that he supports all wars it might just be that he sees much to admire in the extremist Buddhist position of killing, forcibly converting or expelling all non-Bddhists from Sri Lanka; banning the Tamil language and replacing mult-party democracy with a theocracy.
After all its pretty close to his model for Australia.
"The peace might be nice while it lasts, but what if that leads to worse war when it's over?"
Yes, just think a few more months of war in Rwanda and Kosovo might have solved the Tusi and Kosovar "problems" oce and for all.
Read up on the war in Sri Lanka Ben and ask yourself how it could "get worse".
Or are you just parrotting the Bush adminsitration's pro-dead-Lebanese position?
Gimmie a break. I was asking a serious question. I know it will end this thread, but it would have been easier to stop Hitler earlier on. Taking the peace while we could get it lead to millions upon millions of dead.
The point was that I don't know exactly what was going on there. I"m not supporting Blair, I don't really care about his position. I just would like to see the problem there resolved once and for all, and I was merely lamenting the hopeless situations that lead to most wars.
> Gimmie a break. I was asking a serious question. I know it will end this thread, but it would have been easier to stop Hitler earlier on. Taking the peace while we could get it lead to millions upon millions of dead.
Millions upon millions died in "The Great War" and I can't say I blame Europeans at the time for not wanting a repeat. Hey, maybe we should start any number of preventative wars, who knows maybe the Belgians will get threatening someday. Better crush 'em before the Flemingofascism begins!!!!
And to paraphrase your earlier comment, "Having another war in Sri Lanka might be nice while it lasts, but what if that leads to worse war when it's over?"