EnglishClub ESL Forums

Would it be safer for nobody to have a gun or for everybody to have one?

What do YOU think?

NOBODY should have a gun or other weapons.

Dixie wrote:NOBODY should have a gun or other weapons.

Do u include also teeth as weapons? If yes, then are wild animals still allowed to have teeth for hunting.

Hardi wrote: Do u include also teeth as weapons? If yes, then are wild animals still allowed to have teeth for hunting.

We are not talking about hunting, are we?

It doesn't matter, if everybody have gun or nobody. The true and greatest weapon is information.

The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place?

LennyeTran wrote:The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place?

Of course not! I always say that weapons are the worst invention of humanity. Can you imagine a world without weapons?

Dixie wrote:

LennyeTran wrote:The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place?

Of course not! I always say that weapons are the worst invention of humanity. Can you imagine a world without weapons?

You mean girls without beauty at all..... Girls without boobs. No I can't.

Hardi wrote:You mean girls without beauty at all..... Girls without boobs. No I can't.

So you mean that it's impossible to imagine a world without weapons?

Dixie wrote:

LennyeTran wrote:The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place?

Of course not! I always say that weapons are the worst invention of humanity. Can you imagine a world without weapons?

Aliens can attack us. Didn't you see the Simpsons?

LennyeTran wrote: Aliens can attack us. Didn't you see the Simpsons?

You mean alien weapons are more sophisticated that human weapons?

Of course. I assume they might have laser guns. Now which one would you prefer, regular guns or laser guns? I think I would choose laser guns. They just sound cooler and more of futuristic.

Besides, not only guns kill people, other objects do a good job as well. Some people get killed by stoning in some countries, remember? And did you see curse of the golden flower? That king whipped his youngest son until the dude stopped breathing.

NOBODY should have a gun or other weapons.

Well, firstly, you should define weapon. As I understand it, a weapon is anything that can hurt anyone, as simple as that. So, if your statement were truth, mankind hasn´t existed because everything in our environment can be used as a weapon, even some parts of our body. For example, if you hit somebody with your head, you might hurt him badly, even you could kill him (ask Zidedine Zidane, the football player, about using the head as a weapon). Or knifes have to be eliminated because anyone can be stabbed, so we should learn to eat with our hands to avoid further aggression with them.

But if you´re talking about firepower (I mean pistol, rifles, etc) that´s another thing. To me, ban guns is an useless measure because we are the most self-destructed being living in this world. I reckon if guns didn´t exist, We would have invented another thing to replace it. I think ideally, everybody who wish to carry a gun have the right to get one, only if he fullfill the laws existing. But, sadly our current laws about it are so lax that every crazy person can get one without any problem, so we must change the laws first before let anyone to carry guns.

To sum up, I think everybody can carry a gun only if laws are changed.

jrkp wrote: we are the most self-destructed being living in this world. I reckon if guns didn´t exist, We would have invented another thing to replace it.

Exactly! It's people who kill people, not the object itself.

LennyeTran wrote:The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place?

That´s a good question!!! Even though that is the best thing that it would have happened to mankind, I believe that it was inevitable because part of our nature is trying to control everthing around us, and what is the most powerful tool that humans have created to achieve that goal? The answer is of course guns.

Let´s review human history to see what I am talking about. Pre-historic men made a weapons first (a knife) before they had invented the wheel. You will tell me that both are useful, and I agree with that. But in certain point, they nature betrayed them and they started to use that weapon against others humans being, only to feed their ambitions for lands. For me, this situation was wonderfully recreated by Stanley Kurbick, in his movie "2001: An space Odyssey". If you have seen it, you should remember the first chapter, when the ape touched the monolith and got his "intelligence" but instead of using it to help others, he took a piece of bone and started hitting the ones who were different of him. I can give you others examples, but to make my point clear, I think this one is enough.

And as I said in another post, if guns didn´t exist, we would have invented other thing to replace it, or maybe we would have made guns but we would have called it with other name, I don´t know.

Actually we cann't say that we don't need weapons... The important thing is that how we control the use of weapon so that crazy guys never have chance to use them

Guns are already invented, there is nothing we can do to stop it. We should be aware of what could happen not what did happen. :D

It is necessary to clarify the point that "GUN" itself is no problem, well, of course, unless it is a defective gun. This question is, more or less, similar to the question "is money good or not?"

The problem usually come from the user's motivation. Let say, if a man(A) points a gun at another man(B)with intend to kill him. I guess that many people may think that "A" have a bad intention and he should be stopped. However, If "A" is a police officer and "B", let say, he is a mental patient who is trying to hurt his new born baby. In this situation, I guess that many people may suggest that "B" should be shot instantly.

People carry firearms because they need it, they feel more save when they have it. Ironically, police officer in UK do not carry firearms, but the crime rate is lower than America.

Civilians should not carry guns. With the spread of terrorism and fanatism we should not allow anyone to possess arms because they can be used to kill innocent people. A gun carrier or holder may be an insane person, a drug abuser, a religious fanatic.... We have to, instead, increase the number of policemen and policewomen in every corner to protect people's lives and employ young people because unemployment is one of the main causes for the spread of violence and crimes...
Noureddine Boutahar (Morocco)

Imagine a gun was never invented, people would never know how to use it, and people would defend themselves through martial arts. What do you think? Artistic?

Yeah... It is sad thing about humans... All the things they invent originally with good purpose.. later they use against themselves.. Like dynamite.

I firmly belive that wars doesn't make sense at all!!!

I am a graet believer in peace!!!!

I share the opinion that if people would not have weapons they create something else...

Sadly, but fact...

Dear friends.

Every product of technology has two sides : bad sides and good sides, so does a gun.

Guns can be used for good purposes such as to maintain security and order or maintain national defence from being attacked by outsiders. And ideally, they must be held by responsible apparatus.

The next question is " Are civilians entitled for guns ?" The answer is : DEPEND. If they use the guns for good reasons, Why not ? however, if they use it for bad things, they must be forbidden to have one.

In my opinion, as long as they can control themselves in using guns, just go ahead. The most important thing is that before getting a gun, a civilian must follow stricts procedure and process conducted by authorized institutions.

In my country, a civilian who wants to get a gun must follow some tests included technical skill test and phsycological test.

Vinamilk wrote:Actually we cann't say that we don't need weapons... The important thing is that how we control the use of weapon so that crazy guys never have chance to use them

Yeah, i agree with you buddy.
The most important thing is controlling not banning because it is everybody's right to have what they want. As long as it is not used for bad things, WHY not ?

Hardi wrote:It doesn't matter, if everybody have gun or nobody. The true and greatest weapon is information.

We aren't talking about animals or information, are we?

LennyeTran wrote:The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place?

We can't stop people from inventing anything. It's a human nature to invent and create something.That's the difference between human beings and other creatures. We, human beings have intelligence and ability to do it. So don't go against human nature. The most important thing is how we can use the advance of technology or invention for the sake of mankind.

Hardi wrote:

Dixie wrote:

LennyeTran wrote:The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place?

Of course not! I always say that weapons are the worst invention of humanity. Can you imagine a world without weapons?

You mean girls without beauty at all..... Girls without boobs. No I can't.

The problem is not the weapons themselves. But how we, human beings use them for good purposes.

bambang wrote:

Vinamilk wrote:Actually we cann't say that we don't need weapons... The important thing is that how we control the use of weapon so that crazy guys never have chance to use them

Yeah, i agree with you buddy.
The most important thing is controlling not banning because it is everybody's right to have what they want. As long as it is not used for bad things, WHY not ?

It depend... Nobody know that when they 'll use it for bad thing. :)


<first post +____+>

I think no one have gun is the best. In fact, in Vietnam, Vietnamese don't have any gun and, our life is peaceful. In Vietnam , from the past to now, there aren't any problem about gun. So, i think no gun, no death and we will have a good life

popeyevn wrote:I think no one have gun is the best. In fact, in Vietnam, Vietnamese don't have any gun and, our life is peaceful. In Vietnam , from the past to now, there aren't any problem about gun. So, i think no gun, no death and we will have a good life

I think u're really wrong. Can you imagine if Vietnamese people had no guns when they were in war with the US? If it had happened, i'm sure that most of vietnamese people would have died. your country could be free from the US invansion because both militery and civilians had guns to fight back. Do you still think that nobody should have a gun?

C'mon man ! Are sure that nobody in your country has a gun. Sorry man, it really doesn't make sense at all to me.

bambang wrote:

popeyevn wrote:I think no one have gun is the best. In fact, in Vietnam, Vietnamese don't have any gun and, our life is peaceful. In Vietnam , from the past to now, there aren't any problem about gun. So, i think no gun, no death and we will have a good life

I think u're really wrong. Can you imagine if Vietnamese people had no guns when they were in war with the US? If it had happened, i'm sure that most of vietnamese people would have died. your country could be free from the US invansion because both militery and civilians had guns to fight back. Do you still think that nobody should have a gun?

C'mon man ! Are sure that nobody in your country has a gun. Sorry man, it really doesn't make sense at all to me.

They do use guns, but they're not easy to get, even in the black market. That's why they use knives to kill more, which is more of a slow death to me. My cousin's cousin's acquainted friends cut different parts of his body for pleasure after they stabbed him multiple times. It was the worst time his family had to endure.

LennyeTran wrote:

bambang wrote:

popeyevn wrote:I think no one have gun is the best. In fact, in Vietnam, Vietnamese don't have any gun and, our life is peaceful. In Vietnam , from the past to now, there aren't any problem about gun. So, i think no gun, no death and we will have a good life

I think u're really wrong. Can you imagine if Vietnamese people had no guns when they were in war with the US? If it had happened, i'm sure that most of vietnamese people would have died. your country could be free from the US invansion because both militery and civilians had guns to fight back. Do you still think that nobody should have a gun?

C'mon man ! Are sure that nobody in your country has a gun. Sorry man, it really doesn't make sense at all to me.

They do use guns, but they're not easy to get, even in the black market. That's why they use knives to kill more, which is more of a slow death to me. My cousin's cousin's acquainted friends cut different parts of his body for pleasure after they stabbed him multiple times. It was the worst time his family had to endure.

To tell u the truth, I am so sorry for what had happened. But ....

based on your statement, your country and the people really neeeded guns then. Even you had to use knives to fight back. If there had been a lot of guns in Vietnam, the victims would't have been that much.

So actually you agree with me that guns are needed in certain situation, don't you?

I try not to oppose or agree with the gun issue. We need careful deliberation.

LennyeTran wrote:I try not to oppose or agree with the gun issue. We need careful deliberation.

Of course we need careful deliberation. This is a sensitive issue. I got it. But doesn't mean that it will make us hesitate to express out thoughts. This is a good forum to share our ideas. We don't need to be afraid of making mistakes in putting forward our ideas. Because in this forum, we are not talking about right or wrong. We are just sharing each other.

But when somebody's ideas is more argumentative and rational, why we have to hesitate to take and then kick out ours. Similiarly, when we are sure that our ideas are much better, we have to keep it until the end of this world or at least until we find a better one which is more argumentative and rational.

That's my point buddy. Peace.

[quote="bambang
I think u're really wrong. Can you imagine if Vietnamese people had no guns when they were in war with the US? If it had happened, i'm sure that most of vietnamese people would have died. your country could be free from the US invansion because both militery and civilians had guns to fight back. Do you still think that nobody should have a gun?

[/b][/quote]

I´m not sure if what you said is true. You can fight back against an invader without using weapons, and if you check the history of mankind you can get a lot of examples about it. If your statement were true, Mahatma Ghandi hadn´t been capable of achiving India´s independence because, according to your point of view, he should have used firepower to get rid of English. It´s been proven that "pacific resistance" is as effective as it could be the usage of weapons, but sadly, we think that using them we can achieve our goals faster or at least making less effort.

I´m not trying to say that the usage of weapons are good or bad thing, I fact I agree with you that anyone who wants to carry a gun has the right to do it, because at the end of the day, guns don´t kill people, people kill people. But to use guns to expel an evasion, that doesn´t make sense to me.....

jrkp wrote:[quote="bambang
I think u're really wrong. Can you imagine if Vietnamese people had no guns when they were in war with the US? If it had happened, i'm sure that most of vietnamese people would have died. your country could be free from the US invansion because both militery and civilians had guns to fight back. Do you still think that nobody should have a gun?

[/b]

I´m not sure if what you said is true. You can fight back against an invader without using weapons, and if you check the history of mankind you can get a lot of examples about it. If your statement were true, Mahatma Ghandi hadn´t been capable of achiving India´s independence because, according to your point of view, he should have used firepower to get rid of English. It´s been proven that "pacific resistance" is as effective as it could be the usage of weapons, but sadly, we think that using them we can achieve our goals faster or at least making less effort.

I´m not trying to say that the usage of weapons are good or bad thing, I fact I agree with you that anyone who wants to carry a gun has the right to do it, because at the end of the day, guns don´t kill people, people kill people. But to use guns to expel an evasion, that doesn´t make sense to me.....[/quote]


If you look at my previous posts, you'll see that there is consistency of mine on this topic. First, I do believe that the apparatus, both the militery and police officers have the right to own a gun. Even tough we can't generalize that all of them have guns, but in some positions or sections or departments or tasks, they do need a gun.

Second, Do civilians have the right to own a gun. In some conditions, my answer is "yes, they do".
The conditions are :

1. If they really need it and they have followed some tests conducted by an authorized institution to own a gun. The tests, for instance, are the shooting skill tests, physicological test, and so on.

2. If they are in a war.
I do believe that we all need a gun when we are in a war, at least to protect ourselves and family. Without guns, the people would be like still targets who have no power to fight back. The people would be like some mice that are being shot by a kid in a video game. The people will be like some objects for fun.

Let's talk about your suggested case that Mahatma Gandhi could free India from English colonialism without guns. Frankly speaking, I'm one of Gandhi admirers. I really appreciate his sincere struggle. He is one of my favorite figures in ruling his country. His consistency not only existed before the Indian independence but also after India got independence. He is a good role model for other leaders in ruling their own countries.

But you should have known how many Indian people had died to get the independence. It is still fresh in my mind that hundreds of innocent Indian people were taken to a place and then all of them were shot dead. The English troops kept pushing their machine gun triggers to shoot the innocent. And you know what the result was? None of the innocent Indian people were left alive. This case embarassed the English government before the international world.

At that time Indian people did have guns. But the number of guns and the gun technology they had were nothing compared to English'. They really needed more guns to fight back.

The independence of India can not be seen separately from the international situatuin then. At that time the issues of human right, freedom of speech, freedom of organization, freedom of press, freedom of colonialism and other freedom issues became very sensitive issues to discuss across the world. And at that time, lots of countries under the British colonialism had got their independence. And the British government had planned to free all of their colonized areas and set up an organization which is well-known called "The Brithish Commonwealth".

So besides fighting with simple guns, the Indian people tried to get the independence through the diplomatic channel. And those made India free from colonialism.

bambang wrote:First, I do believe that the apparatus, both the militery and police officers have the right to own a gun. Even tough we can't generalize that all of them have guns, but in some positions or sections or departments or tasks, they do need a gun.

Totally agree with you, I fact, that´s why weapons were created for, I mean for the usage of all the branches dedicated on the defense of countries. e.g. Army, Navy, Police, etc...

bambang wrote:Second, Do civilians have the right to own a gun. In some conditions, my answer is "yes, they do".
The conditions are :

1. If they really need it and they have followed some tests conducted by an authorized institution to own a gun. The tests, for instance, are the shooting skill tests, physicological test, and so on.

Absolutely!!!! I couldn´t agree more with you. That´s out of the question. In my opinion, the most important one would be the psychological test with the condition that the owner must have to do it periodically because lots of things could happened that changes one person´s life.

bambang wrote:2. If they are in a war.
I do believe that we all need a gun when we are in a war, at least to protect ourselves and family. Without guns, the people would be like still targets who have no power to fight back. The people would be like some mice that are being shot by a kid in a video game. The people will be like some objects for fun.

In this point, I don´t agree with you. First at all, we need to define what kind of war we are talking about, because as you know, nowadays there are aifferent kind of war, e.g. guerrilla war, "conventional" war, etc. If you mean with "war" as the conventional one, I think guns would be totally useless because you can´t fight against bombs, tanks, missiles with guns. And If you are in a place where a guerrilla war is happening, well, I don´t think that guns were useful either because you can´t predict when you will be attack, I mean, guns won´t stop somebody who puts a bomb in your home in the middle of the night. To me, In both cases the best choice to protect your family is run away and establish yourself in a peaceful place and try to settle there.

bambang wrote:It is still fresh in my mind that hundreds of innocent Indian people were taken to a place and then all of them were shot dead

Yeah, I heard something about and it´s terrifying. But I bet you that there would have had more episodes like this one you mentioned if Indians hadn´t chosen the path of war instead of the pacific methods that they used.

bambang wrote:At that time Indian people did have guns. But the number of guns and the gun technology they had were nothing compared to English'. They really needed more guns to fight back.

To fight back? I don´t understand this. Let me ask you this: what would have happened if they had fought back? I quite sure that Indians and English were still counting bodies of many, many innocent who would have been killed without any logical reason (well at least to me).

bambang wrote:The independence of India can not be seen separately from the international situatuin then. At that time the issues of human right, freedom of speech, freedom of organization, freedom of press, freedom of colonialism and other freedom issues became very sensitive issues to discuss across the world. And at that time, lots of countries under the British colonialism had got their independence. And the British government had planned to free all of their colonized areas and set up an organization which is well-known called "The Brithish Commonwealth".

True, but you have to remember that Gandhi started his battle when he was in South Africa. It´s very famous the episode when he and some of his fellowers went to jail and put themselves there in solidarity with some guy who were found guilty even when he was innocent. I don´t think his ideals depended on the time he had to live.

bambang wrote:So besides fighting with simple guns, the Indian people tried to get the independence through the diplomatic channel. And those made India free from colonialism.

I haven´t heard about any fight with guns during those times. Would you mind giving me some examples about it? I had understood that they didn´t use guns.

jrkp wrote:

bambang wrote:First, I do believe that the apparatus, both the militery and police officers have the right to own a gun. Even tough we can't generalize that all of them have guns, but in some positions or sections or departments or tasks, they do need a gun.

Totally agree with you, I fact, that´s why weapons were created for, I mean for the usage of all the branches dedicated on the defense of countries. e.g. Army, Navy, Police, etc...



So, actually you agree with me buddy that in some extent, guns are needed.

Then, you don't have to think hard to define what kind of war it is. Whatever the war is, conventional, modern, gurilla, or ....any war,
still, we need guns, weapons, war equipment or whatever they are called.

Next, do you think that running away from war is the best choice. Do you think that leaving your people in war is the best choice. Do you think that defensing our country for freedom is useless, stupid, and wasting time. DO YOU THINK ?

In my country, if all people had been like you, we wouldn't have got our independence. We got our independence by squeezing our sweat, pouring our blood, drying our tears. Our founding fathers did everything to get the independence. Of course some of them were dead to reach it. But for us, it is not useless. We really appreciate them, thank them. They never ran away buddy !!!

[/i]

bambang wrote: So, actually you agree with me buddy that in some extent, guns are needed.

Then, you don't have to think hard to define what kind of war it is. Whatever the war is, conventional, modern, gurilla, or ....any war,
still, we need guns, weapons, war equipment or whatever they are called.

Of course, that`s out of the question!! What I wanted to express was that guns are useless to protect your family depending on what kind of war are you fighting to. In a conventional war, it doesn`t matter if you´ve got a bazzocca to defend them, because that`s a useless weapon against a bomb launched by a battleship. Whereas, in guerrila war, I wonder why weapons are useful for, if you walk down the street and step on a mine? or maybe you are driving your car with your weapons and suddendly you are ambushed?.

bambang wrote:Next, do you think that running away from war is the best choice. Do you think that leaving your people in war is the best choice. Do you think that defensing our country for freedom is useless, stupid, and wasting time. DO YOU THINK ?

Not at all!!!! maybe you misunderstood my point of view, or at least I misunderstood yours. In one of your post, you say and I quote:

I do believe that we all need a gun when we are in a war, at least to protect ourselves and family.

.

I said that to achieve that, you don´t need a gun, because there are so much firepower involve that any weapon you manage to get will be completely useless to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY. Do you think a weapon is useful against a bomb dropped by an fighter plane? And I guess that`s the reason why in any war we see thousand and thousand of refugees trying to escape of war zones. I bet you that if you ask them the reason wht they do it, they will tell you to protect their families.

On the other hand, if you wanna defend your country, you should join the army or at least any organization which is leading the resistance against the attacker. They will tell you what to do and give guns to you (or at least they will tell you where you can get one)and how you will be more useful to fight for your country. For example, during Vietnam war, even though Vietnamese didn`t have a formal army, they managed to organize their fight against Americans and I guess that´s why they achieved the withdrawal of them.

bambang wrote:In my country, if all people had been like you, we wouldn't have got our independence. We got our independence by squeezing our sweat, pouring our blood, drying our tears. Our founding fathers did everything to get the independence. Of course some of them were dead to reach it. But for us, it is not useless. We really appreciate them, thank them. They never ran away buddy !!!

In my country too!!! But that´s not the point!! In fact, I´m a little confused here. Ì didn`t said nothing about our founding father or our the independence of our countries. I was talking about your comment about the usage of weapons to PROTECT OUR FAMILIES during a war. I said some parents decide to run away to protect their children and to me that`s the best choice they can make for the reasons I´ve been writting so far.

I don't know who misunderstood whom. But one thing for sure that you misdifine about weapons. Here I quote your post :

"I said that to achieve that, you don´t need a gun, because there are so much firepower involve that any weapon you manage to get will be completely useless to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY. Do you think a weapon is useful against a bomb dropped by an fighter plane?"


My friend, you really screwed it up !!!
I think you need to catch the meaning of weapons. And you should have known that guns and bombs are parts of weapons. How come you said that a weapon is not useful against a bomb. In fact, bombs are parts of weapons.

Then, you should have known that to defend our country we don't have to join the army. Defensing our countries is everybody's responsibility.
The point is we are responsible for what we can do and what role we can play. You can be an informan, a nurse, a cook for the fighters, or any professions you are able to do.

I wanna restate my opinion on this :

"In my country, if all people had been like you, we wouldn't have got our independence. We got our independence by squeezing our sweat, pouring our blood, drying our tears. Our founding fathers did everything to get the independence. Of course some of them were dead to reach it. But for us, it is not useless. We really appreciate them, thank them. They never ran away buddy !!! "

Then you say :

[/quote]

In my country too!!! But that´s not the point!! In fact, I´m a little confused here. Ì didn`t said nothing about our founding father or our the independence of our countries.[/quote]

Come on buddy, get the point!
I just wanted to give you an illustration that protecting families and defensing our countries are not bad. And running away from war is not good. It's even inresponsible. Our founding fathers reached freedom, independence and sovereignity with their tears, sweat and even blood. And they were good examples.

My dear friend, so please, tell me how your country got independence !!! Was it a gift from the coloniser ??? or was it coming from nowhere ???

Hi guys

First of all I can't speak and write English very
because I'm studying English now and I hope every body Try to help me and I’m sure you will find many mistakes in my Post a reply..

Secondly...
I think it's no problem if any body has a gun ..
( Don't think I like the war and I'm dangrous)
My reasons are if there is no gun people will find another weapons to fight with each other.
The problem is not about weapons...
The real problem is people...

Did any body understand what I mean ????
I hope so...

Bambang wrote:I think you need to catch the meaning of weapons. And you should have known that guns and bombs are parts of weapons. How come you said that a weapon is not useful against a bomb. In fact, bombs are parts of weapons.

.

Well, let´s start over to see if you get my point. In my first post, I said weapons are anything that can be used to hurt you, even your own body. Of course bombs are a weapons, but when I said "weapon" in my post, I mean anything YOU manage to get in the streets, for example a knife, a stick, a gun or whatever, because I wanted to braod the discussion, considering that it was bundled up only for guns. When I said that weapons are useless to fight back against bombs is because you won`t get any weapon to repel that attack or at least is not easy. Imagine that you are at home and you see a fighter plane dropping a bomb towards your position...Are you going to shoot your gun, or hurl a knife to stop it?

Bambang wrote:Then, you should have known that to defend our country we don't have to join the army. Defensing our countries is everybody's responsibility.The point is we are responsible for what we can do and what role we can play. You can be an informan, a nurse, a cook for the fighters, or any professions you are able to do.

.


Theorically speaking, that`s true, I mean everybody have the resposability to defend their country. But the reality is that tons of people prefer protect their families and we have to respect that, well, at least I do. If your argument were true, all the lebanese would have fought against Israelis during the last war. But instead of that, we could see (or at least I do)many of them looking for shelter in Syria and the north of the country.

Ok, you can contribute in many ways for a cause, that´s true, but I think that you have to join any organization (called it whatever you want: arny, navy, resistance, etc) because in that way, your contribution will be more effective instead of doing it by your own. For example, if you were an informant and you manage to get a very valuable information that could define the course of any battle... then if you don´t know who the leader is of that battle or more important what are the mechanism to give it that information, let me tell you that information would be completely useless. Or a nurse who want to help but she/he doesn´t know where she/he have to go. In any case you have to be clear about your role during the war and someone have to tell you what it is (an organization, a leader, etc)

Bambang wrote:Come on buddy, get the point!
I just wanted to give you an illustration that protecting families and defensing our countries are not bad. And running away from war is not good. It's even inresponsible. Our founding fathers reached freedom, independence and sovereignity with their tears, sweat and even blood. And they were good examples.

.

Firstly, What do you mean with "not bad"? Of course it´s not bad, if fact that is the problem because many doesn´t know how to do it at the same time, I mean how can you fight for your country avoiding that your familt get hurt?. I guess you´re trying to say that defending your country and proctecting your family are compatible terms, Am I rigth? Well, if that is the case, let me tell you that I disagree with you. How come somebody will fight a war thinking about the safety of its family? Or Do you think soldiers carry their families with them and share priceless moments inside a trench? Do you think Russian soldiers carried their families with them when they had to fight back against Nazi`s attack during the WWII?. My friend, I´m sure that they put their family safe first and afterwards they went to the battlefield. Would you mind telling me how I can protect my family and fight for my country at the same time?

One question... Why do you think is irresponsable running away from the war? Many people think like you, I respect that, but there are many others who don´t think in the same way that you do, because they prefer their family´s protection instead of fighting for their country and I respect that too. I´m not the one to judge them, but i respect both points of views.

Well my friend, it means that there's no difference between us on the definition of weapons. Guns and bombs are parts of weapons. Deal.

My friend, it's okay to broaden our discussion but you shouldn't have forgotten the main topic. As long as your topic is still related to the main topic, to me, that's even better.

My dear friend, again, I want to remind you that you can do whatever the role you can do in a war as long as you can do it. I didn't say that everybody must fight and hold a gun to fight. You can play any role suitable with you. As you also say that we can contribute in many ways for a cause.

Next, my friend, I agree with you that to make it more effective, we have to join any organization (called it whatever you want: army, navy, resistance, etc).

Buddy, I also agree with you that we have to be clear about our role during the war. That's why I say that we have to do anything to defend our country based on our own roles.

Next, let's discuss your question. But before that, I want to quote my opinion again. Here it is :

Bambang wrote:Come on buddy, get the point!
I just wanted to give you an illustration that protecting families and defensing our countries are not bad. And running away from war is not good. It's even irresponsible. Our founding fathers reached freedom, independence and sovereignity with their tears, sweat and even blood. And they were good examples.

.

My friend, I just wanted to give you a soft language by saying "not bad". What I wanted to say is "not bad" means very good".

My friend, I am also convinced that the fighters put their family safe first and afterwards they went to the battlefield. I absolutely agree with you. And I hope if someday (I hope it will not happen) your country is in a war, you'll be one of the fighters who defense your country whatever it takes. And I don't really hope that you'll be the one who run away.



Next, Your question:

"Why do you think is irresponsable running away from the war? Many people think like you, I respect that, but there are many others who don´t think in the same way that you do, because they prefer their family´s protection instead of fighting for their country and I respect that too. I´m not the one to judge them, but i respect both points of views".

My friend, I really respect any points of view. I don't like pushing my opinion to be accepted. I also can not force you to defense your country by involving yourself in a war. I just wanna advice you to be a real man, never run way from any responsibilities including the responsibility to defense and protect your country.


By the way, you have yet to answer my question on how your country got independence. [/quote]

bambang wrote:My friend, I am also convinced that the fighters put their family safe first and afterwards they went to the battlefield. I absolutely agree with you. And I hope if someday (I hope it will not happen) your country is in a war, you'll be one of the fighters who defense your country whatever it takes. And I don't really hope that you'll be the one who run away.

Depends. Speaking strickly about war, I need to believe on the cause what I´m fighting for. As you know, some "leaders" make up any excuse to fight a war, especially when thay can`t solve our basic needs such as unemployment, crime, corruption, etc. Sadly, we have many examples, such as Iraq, The first desert war, malvinas war, etc. What I´m trying to say is that "leaders" take the defense of your country as a flag to divert the attention of the main problems that are afectting it or they take advantage of your ideals to send you to fight for their personal agendas. To make my point clear, I suppose that most of the Americans soldiers or the members of the insurgency who are fighting in Iraq believe that they have been doing it to defense their countries.

bambang wrote:And I don't really hope that you'll be the one who run away.

Well, I don´t know. As I said, If I strongly believe on the cause that I´m fighting for, of course I wouldn´t, but first I need to assure my family´s safety. If I wasn´t not able to do it, then I would run away. In other words, If I have to choose between my country and my family, I´ll choose my family, even though I can have remorses in the future. For example, If I were the only one in my family who is earning money and all of them depend on me to eat, well in that case my friend, I wouldn´t fight, even though I find trustable enough to leave them just in case that something happened to me. I couldn´t be focused on my job thinking about the future of my family without me, that situation would be absolutely unbearable to me and I would be a burden instead of a help.

bambang wrote:By the way, you have yet to answer my question on how your country got independence.

No, I hadn´t forgotten your question, the thing was that I wanted to do some reseach to answer appropriately. Yes, you right, our founding fathers fought very hard to get our independence from Spain and I´m grateful for that. But not all of my countryfellows in that time believed in the independence cause, in fact, some of them ran away to avoid a war that they didn´t want to. So, tell me, Can´t they considered as "real men" only because they didn´t fight a war whose cause they didn´t believe to? Or do you think that in that time, every and each person believe in that cause?

jrkp wrote: Sadly, we have many examples, such as Iraq, The first desert war, the Malvinas war, etc. What I´m trying to say is that "leaders" take the defense of your country as a flag to divert the attention of the main problems that are affecting it or they take advantage of your ideals to send you to fight for their personal agendas. To make my point clear, I suppose that most of the Americans soldiers or the members of the insurgency who are fighting in Iraq believe that they have been doing it to defense their countries.

My friend, your opinion is argumentative enough. But I just hope that all of your point of views which you have put forward are not just excuses for you to run away from a war. I also hope that you are not an irresponsible guy. And I do also hope that you are not a coward, but conversely, I do hope that you're a real man.

One thing that I want to advice you buddy:
Whoever is attacking, invading, or ruining your country, and whatever their reasons for that, they are your enemies. And you should take part to dump them out of your country whatever it takes.

My dear friend, to response your case on the American soldiers in Iraq, here is my point of view :

First, I agree with you that the American soldiers in Iraq are being manipulated by their leaders. They are not defensing their country. In fact, they are ruining the image of the USA before the world.

Second, Since they are not defensing their country or protecting their family, then they don't need to get involved in that occupation and invasion. On this case, I totally agree with you that they can even run away from it or even from the USA and then seek asylum to other countries for protection.

jrkp wrote: If I have to choose between my country and my family, I´ll choose my family.

My friend, both are needed to get protection. If I have to choose between the two, my choice is both. I can not separate them. To me, my family is as important as my country. Both must be protected.

jrkp wrote: Yes, you right, our founding fathers fought very hard to get our independence from Spain and I´m grateful for that. But not all of my country fellows in that time believed in the independence cause, in fact, some of them ran away to avoid a war that they didn´t want to. So, tell me, Can´t they be considered as "real men" only because they didn´t fight a war whose cause they didn´t believe to?

My honey friend, If there are two groups, one is the fighter one and the other is the escapee one, my choice will fall to the first one, the fighting group. And that is a fixed price to me. Unbargainable.

Make a peace for everybody. :)

bambang wrote:My friend, your opinion is argumentative enough. But I just hope that all of your point of views which you have put forward are not just excuses for you to run away from a war. I also hope that you are not an irresponsible guy. And I do also hope that you are not a coward, but conversely, I do hope that you're a real man.

My friend, I´m not making excuses to run away from a war. The thing is when I commit myself to do something, I have to do it right, and to achieve it, I must to be focus on what I´m doing, otherwise, I rather not to do anything. If I have to fight a war and I´m thinking in anthing but my duties on it, well I prefer put myself aside instead of turn into a burden for the cause. That´s why I said:

For example, If I were the only one in my family who is earning money and all of them depend on me to eat, well in that case my friend, I wouldn´t fight, even though I find trustable enough to leave them just in case that something happened to me. I couldn´t be focused on my job thinking about the future of my family without me, that situation would be absolutely unbearable to me and I would be a burden instead of a help.

What I´m trying to say is that I won´t expose my life is that mean jeoparidize my family´s future. To me, it´s not necessary to do that. You can help the cause abroad, for example collecting money, giving speeches at universities or other forums, explaining the reason why we are fighting for, etc.

bambang wrote:One thing that I want to advice you buddy: Whoever is attacking, invading, or ruining your country, and whatever their reasons for that, they are your enemies. And you should take part to dump them out of your country whatever it takes.

Depends. In this point we need to define the reason why some countries invade others. Some "leaders" make up situations to provoke invasion and in that way, take the nationalisim flag to gather the whole country against a common enemy and consolidate his power. In that situation, I won´t fight to repel them. For example, Even though the whole world knew that Iraq didn´t have any nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein did everything he could to show the opposite. We can´t forget that he kicked U.N inspectors out when they were asking for more time, and before that, he hadn´t been very supportive with them. I think he was looking for an excuse to present himself as a victim. Please don´t get me wrong. I´m not supporting U.S invasion, but I believe If Saddam were being more collaborator with U.N inspector, U.S government wouldn´t have had any excuse to lauch such a non sense war and who knows? Maybe Americans hadn´t been supported it in the first place.

On this case, I totally agree with you that they can even run away from it or even from the USA and then seek asylum to other countries for protection.

That´s my point!!!! you see, you say that because you don´t believe in the motive to fight that war. At the beginning of the war, if you were american, you would be consider as a coward just because you seek for asylum. But in any case, it´s YOUR decision and I won´t judge you just because we think different.

bambang wrote: My friend, your opinion is argumentative enough. But I just hope that all of your point of views which you have put forward are not just excuses for you to run away from a war. I also hope that you are not an irresponsible guy. And I do also hope that you are not a coward, but conversely, I do hope that you're a real man.

jrkp wrote: My friend, I´m not making excuses to run away from a war. The thing is when I commit myself to do something, I have to do it right, and to achieve it, I must focus on what I´m doing, otherwise, I rather not to do anything. If I have to fight a war and I´m thinking in anthing but my duties on it, well I prefer put myself aside instead of turning into a burden for the cause.

What I´m trying to say is that I won´t expose my life is that mean jeopardize my family´s future. To me, it´s not necessary to do that.

My friend, I have put forward my point of view on this. Here I restate it !

If there are two groups, one is the fighter one and the other is the escapee one, my choice will fall to the first one, the fighting group. And that is a fixed price to me.

My dear friend, certainly, it's up to you to choose. I also do not have intention to force my opinion to all, included you. So, on this case, we are not in same line. I belong to the first group, the fighter and you belong to the second one. No problem my friend. That's the essence of a discussion buddy. You can take my point of views and you can also get rid of them. That’s normal.

jrkp wrote: You can help the cause abroad, for example collecting money, giving speeches at universities or other forums, explaining the reason why we are fighting for, etc.

Well my friend, we can play our own roles to solve this problem. If one group fights the war inside the country and the other group fights it outside, it would be a very good synergy. Yeah, fight it inside and outside country. But my friend, your fund raising activities, speeches, or the like are useless when there are only very few people fight inside. They will not respect you and even they will not give you their hands. They will appreciate you when the majority of your people fights the war inside and a small number of the people do the fight outside and do some diplomatic approaches. So, in this case, your country needs more fighters inside. But once again my friend, that’s your choice. I can not force to take it.

bambang wrote:One thing that I want to advice you buddy: Whoever is attacking, invading, or ruining your country, and whatever their reasons for that, they are your enemies. And you should take part to dump them out of your country whatever it takes.

jrkp wrote: Depends. In this point we need to define the reason why some countries invade others. Some "leaders" make up situations to provoke invasion and in that way, take the nationalism flag to gather the whole country against a common enemy and consolidate his power. In that situation, I won´t fight to repel them. For example, Even though the whole world knew that Iraq didn´t have any nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein did everything he could to show the opposite. We can´t forget that he kicked the U.N inspectors out when they were asking for more time, and before that, he hadn´t been very supportive with them. I think he was looking for an excuse to present himself as a victim. Please don´t get me wrong. I´m not supporting the U.S invasion, but I believe If Saddam were being more collaborative with the U.N inspector, the U.S government wouldn´t have had any excuse to launch such a non sense war and who knows? Maybe Americans hadn´t been supported it in the first place.

My friend, no countries in this planet has the right to invade other independent countries. Iraq is an independent country. If there is a problem inside it, then the country itself should solve their own problem. Other countries just have the right to give advice or help or the like, but they don’t have the right to give "an invasion". They don’t have the right to kill others. It absolutely goes against the Universal of Human Right Acts. Mr Bush say he did it for the sake of the Iraqi people. Then he said Saddam was a killer. But in fact - and I’m convinced that you are in line with me in this case- Mr bush himself is the real killer. He has killed people more than he suspected to Saddam. He has killed uncountable innocent people in Iraq. And he has also sucked his soldiers’ blood in Iraq. Thousands of American soldiers have died for nothing but just for Bush’ personal agendas. What a pity the victims are !!!
And what a shame on Bush !!!

bambang wrote: On this case, I totally agree with you that the American soldiers can even run away from it or even from the USA and then seek asylum in other countries for protection.

jrkp wrote: That´s my point!!!! At the beginning of the war, if you were American, you would be considered as a coward just because you seek for asylum. But in any case, it´s YOUR decision and I won´t judge you just because we think differently.

My friend, this is a different case. The American soldiers are not defensing their country and protecting their families. In fact, they are invading other country !!! They will not be considered as cowards if they try to seek asylum in other countries. They are even considered as heroes, because they are trying to uphold justice and truth in this planet.

Bambang wrote:My dear friend, certainly, it's up to you to choose. I also do not have intention to force my opinion to all, included you. So, on this case, we are not in same line. I belong to the first group, the fighter and you belong to the second one. No problem my friend. That's the essence of a discussion buddy. You can take my point of views and you can also get rid of them. That’s normal.

My friend, firstly, I don´t have the intention to force your opinion, that´s not the point because, as you said, that´s the core of the discussion, when you can hear different points of views and enrichment your perception of things. Second, I have said, and I´ve been very consistent with this, that I would fight If two condition are fulfilled:

1) If I strongly believe in the cause I´m fighting for, and
2) If I can assure my family future.

I´ll give you a case where I would fight: If my country is invaded and I considered that action doesn´t have any logical justification and also, I manage to assure my family´s future without me, for example, sending them to live abroad. In this case I would fight with all my heart to defend my ideals without any distraction, so in that way, I can give my best for the cause I´m fighting for.

Bambang wrote:Well my friend, we can play our own roles to solve this problem. If one group fights the war inside the country and the other group fights it outside, it would be a very good synergy. Yeah, fight it inside and outside country. But my friend, your fund raising activities, speeches, or the like are useless when there are only very few people fight inside. They will not respect you and even they will not give you their hands. They will appreciate you when the majority of your people fights the war inside and a small number of the people do the fight outside and do some diplomatic approaches. So, in this case, your country needs more fighters inside. But once again my friend, that’s your choice. I can not force to take it.

As you said my friend, it´s a synergy. Also, It I guess it would be completely useless if you have an entire nation fighting but they don´t have enough resources to fight back, in the case that your enemy have more resources than you. So, with this idea in mind, I´ll tell you that I could be more effective doing diplomatic work instead to fight a war where I can´t be absolulety focus on my duty. But, as you said, It´s a matter of choice and more important a matter of conviction.

bambang wrote:My friend, no countries in this planet has the right to invade other independent countries. Iraq is an independent country. If there is a problem inside it, then the country itself should solve their own problem. Other countries just have the right to give advice or help or the like, but they don’t have the right to give "an invasion". They don’t have the right to kill others. It absolutely goes against the Universal of Human Right Acts.

I wanna link this comment you have made with mine in the first paragraph. I´ll quote myself:

If my country is invaded and I considered that action doesn´t have any logical justification

My opinion is that we need to see an invasion in the context it takes place. I disagree with you when you said that no countries has the right to invade others. For example, Imagine that your country is attacked by an extrenal one which is lauching missiles from its territory. To me, it completely justificable to invade that country which is attacking mine. Or Are you going to do nothing to stop it just because you have to respect its sovereignty? Or are you gonna advice it to stop the attack? That´s why I said that some invasion are neccesary, but it must have a pretty good justification.

bambang wrote:Then he said Saddam was a killer. But in fact - and I’m convinced that you are in line with me in this case- Mr bush himself is the real killer. He has killed people more than he suspected to Saddam

I don´t know which one is the worst. To me, both are very alike and the good thing is that at the end, in some way, justice prevail. In the case of Saddam, who wasn´t an angel, well, we know how he ended up and regarding Mr Bush , well everybody hates him and he´s become in the most unpopular president in the history of the United States, and to a person who is arrogant and with the inflated ego that is some kind of punishment.

Bambang wrote:My friend, this is a different case. The American soldiers are not defensing their country and protecting their families. In fact, they are invading other country !!! They will not be considered as cowards if they try to seek asylum in other countries. They are even considered as heroes, because they are trying to uphold justice and truth in this planet.

You said that because you´re thinking as a Philippine and not as American (I suppose you´re Indonesian because your location is Jakarta). Remember that Mr Bush made up a new way to "protect" them and sadly, they bought it. So, in their minds they were protecting their country and their family and I respect that, even though I didn´t agree with their arguments....

bambang wrote:My friend, no countries in this planet has the right to invade other independent countries. Iraq is an independent country. If there is a problem inside it, then the country itself should solve its own problem. Other countries just have the right to give advice or help or the like, but they don’t have the right to give "an invasion". They don’t have the right to kill others. It absolutely goes against the Declaration of Human Right Acts.

jrkp wrote:I disagree with you when you said that no countries has the right to invade others. For example, Imagine that your country is attacked by an external one which is launching missiles from its territory. To me, it's completely justifiable to invade that country which is attacking mine.

My friend, let's make straight the definition of "an invader". The country which is attacking other country is called the INVADER. In the case of yours, certainly, if your country is being attacked by another, it means that the country which is attacking yours is the INVADER.

And if your country fights back by launching the missiles too, your country is not called the invader. It’s a defense !!! Your country is trying to defense and protect its sovereignity. My friend, basically no other countries have the right to do the same thing as your country is doing. My country – you are right I’m Indonesian - also has no right to launch some missiles at the invader, and other countries do not either. All we can do is to stop it rather than re-invade the invader.

The next question is how to stop the invasion. This is a very important question.

I’d like to broaden our discussion on this. Sorry if this is too long.

I would bring the real case that's happening in Iraq.

We both agree that in this case the USA is the invader. Even the USA calls this operation as INVASION. And most of people in this planet agree that what the USA is doing in Iraq now is totally wrong. And the majority of the USA people is not even in line with the USA's policy. It's been proven that the majority of American people didn't support the party where Mr. Bush comes from. The vote for the party dropped drastically. And the opposing party won the parliamentary election by getting more than 50% of the total vote.

My point is we can not re-invade the USA just because it has done a wrong doing by invading Iraq. The solution is:

First of all, we have to use any resources to stop America keep doing this, included using your favorite channel: DIPLOMATIC APPROACH.

And if this still fails then we may stop America with arm forces and weapons. But remember my friend, it is only the last step when other alternatives do not work. And we do not say that this last step is an invasion, but it is a defense, protecting one country from being colonized and swept away by other. And America "deserves" that.

bambang wrote:Then he said Saddam was a killer. But in fact - and I’m convinced that you are in line with me in this case- Mr bush himself is the real killer. He has killed people more than he suspected to Saddam

jrkp wrote:I don´t know which one is the worst. To me, both are very alike and the good thing is that at the end, in some way, justice prevail.

Regarding Mr Bush , well everybody hates him and he´s become in the most unpopular president in the history of the United States, and to a person who is arrogant and with the inflated ego that is some kind of punishment.

Well my friend, on this case, I totally agree with you. BRAVO.


The next case :

Bambang wrote:My friend, this is a different case. The American soldiers are not defensing their country and protecting their families. In fact, they are invading other country !!! They will not be considered as cowards if they try to seek asylum in other countries. They are even considered as heroes, because they are trying to uphold justice and truth in this planet.

jrkp wrote:Remember that Mr. Bush made up a new way to "protect" them and sadly, they bought it. So, in their minds they were protecting their country and their family and I respect that, even though I didn´t agree with their arguments....

My friend, I am so sorry to say that Mr. Bush has managed to manipulate his people for the sake of his personal agendas. And I really take pity on the American soldiers. I just wanna suggest the American people to stop Mr. Bush from killing his won soldiers by sending them to Iraq. And regarding with the soldiers: My soldier friends, please think about my suggestion to seek asylum in other countries.

Bambang wrote:My friend, let's make straight the definition of "an invader". The country which is attacking other country is called the INVADER.......

Why? I don´t understand why you said that. An invader is someone who enter into a place which doesn´t belong to him. As simple as that!!! According to cambridge Dictionary, This is the definition of Invade:

http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/def ... &dict=CALD

Definition
invade Show phonetics
verb
1 to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it:
Concentrations of troops near the border look set to invade within the next few days.

2 to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage:
Hundreds of squatters have invaded waste land in the hope that they will be allowed to stay.

3 [T] to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way:
Maria looks set to invade the music scene with her style and image.

4 [T] to spoil a situation or quality that another person values with very noticeable and selfish behaviour:
Famous people often find their privacy is invaded by the press.

So, seeing this definitions, How come you say that a country which is attacking other is an INVADER? When I said Invader, I meant that other country´s troops putting theirs foots in yours, that all.... I rather refer to them as "attackers"

Bambang wrote:And if your country fights back by launching the missiles too, your country is not called the invader. It’s a defense !!! Your country is trying to defense and protect its sovereignity. My friend, basically no other countries have the right to do the same thing as your country is doing. My country – you are right I’m Indonesian - also has no right to launch some missiles at the invader, and other countries do not either. All we can do is to stop it rather than re-invade the invader.

Ok, you´ve gotta a point here but in some point, other measures have to be taken to stop the attack, because your country won´t be launching missiles forever. When this happen, I mean, when the missile´s launching stop being effective... What else your country should do?

Bambang wrote:First of all, we have to use any resources to stop America keep doing this, included using your favorite channel: DIPLOMATIC APPROACH.

Including? To me this channel have to be present in every stage of the war, It shouldn´t be abandoned in any circumstances, even in the most blooding war. I strongly believe that negociating we can achieve much more than fighting each other, of course, if both parts have the will to do it.

Bambang wrote:And if this still fails then we may stop America with arm forces and weapons. But remember my friend, it is only the last step when other alternatives do not work. And we do not say that this last step is an invasion, but it is a defense, protecting one country from being colonized and swept away by other. And America "deserves" that.

So, my friend, you actually agree with me that in some circumstances, an invasion is acceptable, only if it has a very good justification.... And that´s what I´ve been saying, in some special situation, the only possible solution is the invasion, and history has many examples of that....