• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Peacemongering II


Dec 21, 2004
Reaction score
I have asked this question before but the thread is probably hidden in the depths of this website somewhere, where people don't look. Plus it has been awhile. So, here it is:

I think I have invinted a new word: peacemongering. We all know about warmongering and how bad it is. I feel that opposing war can also be harmful at times.
EX: During WWII (before we entered the war), there was a lot of protest to the war. Even Charles Lindbergh was a activist against us going to war. FDR was very much against war also. And didn't want to get involved. Then Pearl Harbor happened. We were forced into the war anyways. A lot of our allies died and we did not help them. So, our choice not to go to war was harmful to others.

I believe that war is a necissary evil, at times. So, do you guys believe that there are times when protesting war might be harmful?
Which is worse, warmongering or peacemongering?
Warmongering. "Peacemongering" does not require inaction. And I don't know if you can tell by my username but I think you can get alot done by working things out with communication rather than with guns and bombers. Personally I do believe that warmongering does require hate.
Yes, I believe that war is never the answer.

Go ahead... call me an idealist so we can get that going... come on...
Well, you are a idealist and not living in the real world. So, if we were bombed by another country and they claimed responsibility for it, you would not fight back? So long America
Idealist... hmm...

REALITY is human beings have been around for 3 MILLION years. And you're telling me that it's idealist to think we could start solving problems through communication rather than with bigger and better guns?

Whatever. You have your right to think like that.

Realities start from ideas.

Countries don't just bomb each other for fun. There would be reasons. Reasons we could COMMUNICATE THROUGH.

So let's start.

Why would someone want to bomb America?


Why do they hate us?

These are questions that subvert stupidity. By stupidity, I mean war. By war, you mean reality.

Especially today, with the technology we have, with all we've learned, how we've evolve from all fours to upright. I think we can change into peaceful creatures.

Don't make this an evolutionary argument that was not my intention.
Last edited:
Alright, hot shot, lets say it is 1942, you are the President of the United States and Japan has just bombed Pearl Harbor. Now, communicate your way out of this one. Ask Japan if they would like to stop their crazed imperialistic ways. Stop attacking thier neighbors, stop the rape of Namking. Then ask Hitler to stop killing Jews and stop invading his neighbors. Think about it....what kind of response would you get?

You have a good heart and I admire that. I know that you want to make the world a better place. But you have to think of real solutions.
Well hot shot, let's think for just a moment.

1942.... 2005

1942... President can't walk

2005... President can't talk.

Think of the solutions we have today. Was there a CIA back then? No, it was founded in 1951.

Why did Germany snap and start killing jews? Because of what the world did to them after WWI. They were in poverty and suffering and suddenly a guy with a crazy stache stands up and starts running off at the mouth. To them it wasn't a holocaust. It was a revolution. This does not condone their actions in anyway.

What would have happened in 1930 if a bullet found it's way in to the rising Nazi's party leader? Do you think the Nazi party would have pulled through? Hell no.

1 man's life for 6 million. Not to mention the casualties of the war.

Subterfuge. Cloak and Dagger. Call it what you will. It's the last resort. War shouldn't be any means.
We didn't have a CIA in 1930.
So, instead of war we should have the CIA offing people. Even a man who didn't do anything. Adolf Hitler was still pretty innocent in 1930. You are non violent but we should assassinate people.

You still really didn't give a solution to the problem in 1942. Okay, let's say we kill Hitler a year before Japan attacks us. That wouldn't really stop anything by then. You say war is never the answer but you havn't really come up with a solution of your own.
The CIA one slender-mustached douche is better than the millions upon millions of people that died in that god forsaken war. I don't like it but I'll take it. Adolf Hitler was pretty damn popular in 1930. He was elected in 1932. A jew hating jew spewing hate and taking advantage of a broken people, you wouldn't exactly need Miss Cleo for that one.

I say I'm non violent and I'm okay with assassinating a person. People gets complicated.

As for Japan, nothing comes to mind when I try to think up why they entered WWII. If you can help me with this go ahead.

It amazes me how my ways are so stupid, and yet dropping an A bomb that kills over 400,000 people is intelligent.

The first step towards total peace and no assassinations is fixing the corrupt and useless United Nations. I would love to see this. But greed is harder to overcome than Hitler I'm sure.
Exactly. What are we arguing about?

You are saying killing is okay if it means that less people will die. That's what I am saying. If we would have got into the war earlier we could have helped our allies finish off the axis. The war would have been quicker and less people would have died.
I really don't know how to respond. All I know is that puts a terrible taste in my mouth. I can say that no matter what comes of this conversation, I won't ever concede that any war is okay. I just can't do it.

Honestly 1945 doesn't concern me near is much as 2005.
I really respect that you hate war. Everyone does, but some more than others. In order to have a philosophy on different things, you have to say that they work in the real world. I wish there was no war, everyone was rich, everyone believed in Jesus, everone was happy. But there is no way to do that, so I settle for what's next best.
Next best?

I really don't think this is a hard concept to work in the real world. Especially in TODAY's real world. In in the 1940's I agree that there really were few alternatives, no alternatives although Gandhi still beat the British, but Gandhi wasn't dealing with Hitler. Today there are plenty of alternatives to all out open war.

No country in the world today has a self sustaining economy. In that, everyone is dependent on the rest of the world. So if only we could rip the greed out of the UN and heck, politics and general, I think we could get things done fairly quickly and with low cost of human life.

But it all has to start from the majority of the world wanting peace. I don't think we're far from that today.

As for everyone being rich, I think we'd all have alot of money left over if we weren't so concerned with building better ways to kill each other and paying people to kill each other.

As for everyone believing in Jesus...

To each his own on that one.
1940 to today, what is the difference?

The same thing could happen, today.
Nothing we couldn't/wouldn't see coming.

2005 :: 1940 as 1940 :: 1875.

There's a huge difference. If I can't convice you of that, I don't know how to continue.
Please continue, because you still haven't conviced me.

"Nothing we couldn't/wouldn't see coming."

I don't understand what you are getting at.
Stuff we didn't see coming? Like 9-11, did you see that one coming?
And how exactly does that compare to 1940.
You intend to undo that hatred by returning their violence?

First things first:

Why do they hate us?
First off, the enemy can't hate you if the enemy is dead. What do you intend to do after see were attacked on Sept. 11? Give Osama bin Laden a hug?

Okay, I'll see where you are trying to go with this one.

Osama bin Laden personally claims to hate us because there were U.S. troops in the holy land in Saudia Aradia, during the first Gulf War. I feel he and other members of Al Queda, hated us because they saw American culture as preverted, plus we are a very powerful nation and they had basically sour grapes. Please correct me if my assesment is wrong, then go on with your excersise.

P.S. You seem to avoid the question of how the present compares with 1940.
What is your solution? Make a martyr of him. Give others reason to go to his cause by blowing things up?

Considering I was in highschool when september 11th happened, no i didn't see that coming.

But there are those that would argue that many people close to the top did. I am not one of those.

Today people in from Jaktar to Cairo say that it doesn't surprise them that what happened happened. We knew they hated us. We knew they wanted to act. I do agree that we knew that much.

Hardly anyone in America gave a damn about terrorism before 9/11. But when those planes took those towers out. That's when the whole country started caring.

What does one do after 9/11? Honestly, I dont know how to answer that but I tell what isn't the aswer:

"The enemy can't hate you if the enemy is dead."

For every person you kill you draw more into hatred. Everyone has at least one person, I'm willing to bet, that gives a damn about them. Unless we try to undo that hatred, which can't be done with weapons, it's never going to be undone. Making the mistake of fighting fire with fire is just going to incite more acts like those that took place on september 11, and then our children will have to pay for it. They will look back and they will see what we did. Hopefully, they will see how we were wrong. How nothing was fixed. Or maybe they'll just say, "They didn't kill them good enough."

It's never going to end unless you want it to. Until you want it to, the concept of no war is idealist.
Of course we fight fire with fire. What do you want us to do, you say that violence is not a option, but you have no option of your own. I don't want this to sould like an insult, but you have very simplistic views. You state the obvious without thinking about it. As for me, I have to weigh the issues more. Like I don't believe in abortion, because I don't think a human should have the choice to take anothers life away. However, I believe in the death penalty because I think it is a good deterent.

If we kill members of Al Queda, you say that we will cause more people to want to kill us. I disagree. If they are at a level in which they are willing to kill, then they are already the enemy. Because friend or not, they would be sympithetic to them. Hypothetical situation: Let's say a friend of yours was a crimal and he robbed some banks and while doing so he killed some people. So, the cops find him and try to arrest him. While doing so he pulls out a gun, so the cops kill him. Now would you seek revenge and want to kill the cops? No, (and not because you are a pacifist) because you know what your friend did was wrong. Hell, you wouldn't hang out with someone like that in the first place. The same goes for Osama's friends.

Now let's continue with the experiment, or was that it.


We now have the UN, which is a good idea, but needs major reform in order to be effective.

We have the CIA.

We are even more of a super power now than we were then.

We are more dependent on oil today than we were.

There are many many differences. I don't understand why you don't see any.

Now as for the bank robber friend scenario:

Bank robbers don't go around talking of propaganda and trying to draw people to their cause. Bank robbers don't believe that what they are doing is right. Bank robbers don't use religous obligations to go out and kill the infidel because some are dying of poverty while the infidel dies of obesity. When that bank robber dies, no one is going to say he was killed because of his religion. There is a monumental difference between a bank robber and muslim extremist.

We beat extremism here didn't? We didn't do it by lynching the white people back.
Top Bottom