 |
|
|
|
| Our Shared Future Is At Stake |
| "War itself has entered a crisis because techno science has made war so horrific that it is a threat to human survival itself and therefore is profoundly nonsensical."
~ retired generals and other veterans of war (FOR),
or:
"Now, for the first time in history, it is not just cheaper, but easier, to kill a million people than to take care of a million people. It's an alarming but significant observation in this era where economics has truly displaced all other political priorities."
~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US National Security Advisor (AGAINST);
Peaceful utopia (FOR) or Orwelian dystopia (AGAINST)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your stance? You just copied and pasted someone else position on the topic. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm against war so I'm believing my response belongs in this column. It is true that war has
evolved to a frightening capacity for targeting and/or mass killing, and naturally I'm against doing
that. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sorry...not a real vote. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
First of all, it has, since the dawn of currency, always been cheaper to kill a million people than
take care of a million people. Perhaps a bit more time consuming, but certainly cheaper.
Second, war is far less horrific that it has ever been, because of technology. American (western)
forces kill far fewer civilians than ever before. There is still collateral damage, but it is
minimal.
You've posted two extremist views. The first is alarmist, the second purely cynical. Neither, in
my opinion, is very intelligent.
I guess I'm posting on the disagree side because I don't think either of these perceptions will
prevail. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 Aug 2008 23:01
Sign In
