Posted by ParU on Mon, 03/08/2004 - 12:56pm.
I agree with your statement. I certainly agree with the not damaging property (or hurting people, unsaid, but obvious). However... Is violence ever right? Not withstanding Jesus and Gandhi, etc., I'd take the point of view that in some cases (such as Hitler, Saddam, etc.) where 'world' view of their actions matters to them, then violence is often the only (maybe the last) solution. Cause if Hitler had conquered India he would've just shot Gandhi, but the British cared about world opinions. (The Romans didn't but they did care about 'unrest').
A case in point that's not gotten too much press is Libya. Note that it's turned over it's tons of mustard gas, nuclear facilities, etc. Why now? Lots of opinions, but International Sanctions have been in place for 20 years, with little effect. But a much larger similar state (Iraq) lasted all of 2 weeks and I'd imagine Kaddafi gets CNN.
It's Amino world without Chemists
Your name:
Anne Onymous
Allowed HTML tags: <a> <b> <dd> <dl> <dt> <i> <li> <ol> <u> <ul> <em> <blockquote> <br> <hr> <br/>