Sunday, July 26, 2009

Fighting for Peace is Like Fucking for Virginity [Poster]



Another free work. Translation by me.

17 comments:

psybermonkey said...

As clever and witty and it sounds at first, I don't agree with it. Sometimes fighting is the only way to make things more peaceful (killing off Taliban for instance).

BlindW@cher said...

Taliban is a tool for the US government to justify their acts in Afghanistan.

psybermonkey said...

Whether that's a fact or not doesn't matter. The point is that fighting with certain people and eliminating them would indeed create more peace. Thus, it makes perfect sense.

BlindW@cher said...

Then we should ask that war is a necessity or can it be an imposition? If we look at the Taliban's side, they have valid reasons to fight and in this war Afghan people is used for his profit. Same for the US people. War is a tool (as religion) for leaders or governments to justify their acts, it's artificial. If Taliban dies, a new one will take his place and humanity will fight forever like before...

Andrew Clunn said...

What about peace keeping forces. Armed soldiers sent in to suppress gang violence and tribal warfare that is threatening innocent lives?

BlindW@cher said...

Peace keeping forces is a term of oxymoron.

The manners of the UN proved that they lost their legitimacy and reliability in Iraq War(honestly long before this war). The UN can not act freely, if they help somewhere, they do it for a reason.

Peace keeping is like taking every opportunity from poor and then guarding like a baby-sitter to keep quite them (as in the situation Iraq now. Although there is no silence, just more chaos).

Same for the NATO.

Moreover, in short fights in Afghanistan, lots of civilian and children killed by the NATO soldiers and they claimed the same arguments to justify their acts.

Another peace keeping: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/27/afghan-shooting.html

I think this is not in the terms of peace keeping or justice.

Of course, these are the tip of the iceberg, there is a long history behind the curtains.

Charles said...

I think the issue is very complicated.

I think that decisive military action is needed to prevent genocide and atrocities on a massive scale. I think the international community needs to get that right to start with.

Sudan...

SShendeR said...

BlindW@cher, following your logic the Allied resistance to the Nazis would have been immoral, because they inadvertently killed innocent Germans as well. This kind of "logic" and attitude is the reason why we are in this s**thole to begin with. If we ignore the moral relativism for a second, and admit that some ideologies are better and more humane than others, than it makes perfect sense to use military force if necessary to defend the former from the latter.

I find it baffling that you come up with justification for the Taliban's fight, yet see none in that of the US and Europe. Claiming that everybody is a US tool is the easiest thing to do, and is usually the refuge of the uninformed and conspiracy inclined folk. (and Mr. Chomsky, of course).

To sum up, fighting for peace could be dirty but nonetheless justified. Nothing embodies it more than the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing which was a war crime, but one that brought peace in a place where cultural peculiarities meant that the war would have dragged for many more years and caused many times the amount of casualties and damage.

The modern military restraint, as exemplified in the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, only emboldens the belligerents and perpetuates the conflict. So there are no simple answers, and the "Make Peace, not War" movement is only making it worse.

psybermonkey said...

Also, keep in mind that the poster says "fighting," not "all out war."

Tell me Blindw@cher, do you believe that our federal law enforcement is wrong in that they FIGHT criminals for a more peaceful society? If not, then you do agree that fighting for peace can be justified.

BlindW@cher said...

The phrase was used by anti-war protesters during Vietnam War. So if you take the first meaning, this is a different story.

I never claimed a passive approach to solve crime or terror, but this does not mean we should be part of every act claims to keep peace.

Also, this is not related to innocents killed during a fight (uh, we should look at the big picture!), and I never said Taliban is right. You missed the point. I look behind the process. I didn't choose any sides.

The US government (also the UK) put forward the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to excuse the invasion but they found nothing after the war. I think everything is better to this point of view now, because they invaded Iraq for peace!

SShendeR said...

BlindW@cher, I agree that the Iraq adventure was wrong on many levels; the WMD lie being one of them. In reality the WMDs served merely as an excuse for an invasion motivated by other reasons, more financial and ideological in nature. However, I believe that toppling the Saddam regime was the moral thing to do in itself, and the ensuing mess is the direct consequence of disastrous policy (and sometimes the complete lack thereof) by the coalition forces, both military and civilian. It's very easy to judge with hindsight, but had there been no insurgency, than the ousting of Saddam would have been morally justified IMO, even if it violates the sovereignty of of a UN member state. One would have thought that people concerned with human rights would feel the same way, alas, it looks like they are more concerned with politics than with true human rights.

Now, while the legality and morality of the invasion of Iraq is questionable given it's dire consequences, there was little ambivalence about the Afghanistan campaign which was entirely justified back when it was ruled by the Taliban. There too, the situation has got out of hand because of faulty planning and execution.

To sum things up, as is usually the case, simplistic slogans (however witty) are not going to advance the case of real peace, but instead only complicate things by attributing easy solutions to complex problems that result in disastrous outcomes. And this is relevant today more than ever.

peace

psybermonkey said...

well said.

hadr0n said...

I would have thought that fucking would be the best way to make new virgins!

Charles said...

lol

That makes a lot more sense :)

Ateizam said...

Well, none of those who mentioned Allies and Nazis mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki... It is really hard to say if it is right to use violence against those who oppress others, because what western civilization considers crime, in some other cultures might be considered right. Like female circumcision in Afrika, or dictatorship in Cuba. Maybe these actions don't require wars but I hope you understand what I wanted to say. I don't say we don't have to take actions, but I just want to say that it is double edged sword. I agree with sayings on the poster.

TRCIII said...

Actually, this tired old saw, resurrected from the 60s, is one of the worst analogies on the planet; you should have left it in its resting place in obscurity, because the two acts are not remotely equivalent. First off, there are no "war virgins" on Earth that haven't already been subjugated, or assimilated into some conqueror's population. Everybody left knows how to make war, or they wouldn't still exist as a people.
But putting that aside, using this horrible analogy, the way you achieve peace by going to war is by continuing to fuck and fuck and fuck the enemy's "virginity" until he is either completely dead or until his apparatus for using his "virginity" is completely obliterated and he is unable to ever "make war" again. THAT is how you achieve peace by going to war. In your analogy, you stop after removing the virginity. In actual war, you never stop until the enemy can't continue because either his body or his will is too battered and broken to go on.

Now, if that second image translated onto a woman's body repulses you, it should. As I said...this is a reeeeeeally bad analogy, but hey...it's YOUR analogy, not mine. But mostly, this is a bad analogy because war achieves peace after a long, drawn-out, ongoing act of violence, and hopefully, a woman loses her virginity, once, in a brief moment of discomfort, during an otherwise pleasurable act of love.
Try again, peacenik, but this time...try to make sense when you speak. :)

Anonymous said...

It will always feed revengem

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...