This is a quote from Albert Einstein:
"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
It appears as if Albert E. would not support George Bush, the War or the Troops....
2007-08-02
22:30:40
·
10 answers
·
asked by
sassychickensuckerboy
4
in
News & Events
➔ Current Events
Yes, Albert would have opposed all war, and that means all groups devotes to war.
"Protection" is a guise, another word for "cloak". There are other ways to protect ourselves. If we have the sagacity to use diplomacy and solve problems rather than start them.
2007-08-02
22:56:10 ·
update #1
The troops can examine their conscience and decide not to go to war. So, they are responsible for their own actions. No one held a gun to their head when they enlisted with their own free will. That may sound unfair, but a real man is responsible for his own actions.
2007-08-02
22:58:42 ·
update #2
Another quote by Albert: "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
2007-08-02
23:14:45 ·
update #3
Cowboydoc: you have acheived NOTHING by going to war. And remember, cowboys don't allow correspondence because they don't understand other people's opinions. They don't know how to listen, and they are mired in old world useless thinking....
2007-08-02
23:18:06 ·
update #4
Cowboy: what did you ACHEIVE? What did you earn by killing babies? What did you acheive by putting your life on the line?
2007-08-02
23:25:50 ·
update #5
What did you acheive, cowboy, by firing weapons at the "enemy"?
Earning one's citizenship by killing people is exactly the type of old world thinking that is damaging our country...
2007-08-02
23:30:22 ·
update #6
"Violence is the refuge of the incompetent"---Arthur C. Clarke, Genuis, Sci-Fi writer, and inventor of the satellite...
2007-08-02
23:58:46 ·
update #7
It appears, Cowboydoc, that all you have is pride. And that means A LOT to you, doesn't it?
2007-08-03
00:09:26 ·
update #8
Janice: How come people with ancient, worn out ideas are always telling us what "reality" is? Reality is what we make it out to be. And Albert with speaking about the higher forms of self, what we could aspire to become. So--is he wrong to do so?
Your answer is, basically, "the future is war". That's not very enlightened.
2007-08-03
00:13:21 ·
update #9
Janice: you may have gotten it backwards. Too much war can lead to us living in caves or mud hutts. Here's another quote of Einstein's:"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Cowboydoc is passe', a man from another age. He's as dry as a milkbone from 1908...
2007-08-03
00:21:00 ·
update #10
Let's contemplate what "cloak" really means. It means RATIONALE, or Rationalizations, which is what all of you are giving me. That's how we delude ourselves into thinking war is just fine.
2007-08-03
00:56:27 ·
update #11
Oh boy...I just looked at cowboycdocs stats. Answers: 5769. Questions: 2. You can usually tell an egotist by the number of questions they ask compared with the number of questions they answer. Did I hit the nail on the head, or what? A total lack of curiousity about the world..
2007-08-03
01:01:14 ·
update #12
I guess his stats indicate that it is very painful for him to actually ask a question and LISTEN to an answer. I guess he would much rather talk out of his....(one letter difference from ASP).
"Cowboy mentality" is obsolete, my friend.
2007-08-03
02:15:05 ·
update #13
Bob Mc: your opinion is biased, since we don't know what we are doing anyhow. There are other ways of generating defense.
2007-08-03
12:45:35 ·
update #14
I also won't take an innoculation for a disease if the research done to discover that cure involved killing unwilling human subjects in laboratories. I will deride that methodology also. Peace through war?
2007-08-03
12:51:54 ·
update #15
I was called a "baby killer" when I got home, broke a few noses over it too.
I answered the call to my country, like my five first cousins, one a girl. We grew up fast, at 17 and 18 years old, because our country called us.
We fought for our lives, I remember at 17 (lied my age) and sitting on a jungle trail with the enemy all around, what it would be like to kiss and girl. I had not matured to that point yet in my young age but, I was risking my life for people like you.
Your sitting in a warm and cozy sitting, probably not working, living off your parents or, someone else, thinking you know everything about the world.
Let me ask you this, what have you done to give your country a hand, what have you done to earn the freedom you have, what have you offered your country besides crying for something you don't deserve or have not earned.
Kennedy said it all: "ask not what your country can do for you but, what you can do for your country"
I was 18 when I got home, wounded twice, I was spit on, called a baby killer (not many did this without payment) but, the ones that did it were the lowlife of the country that never earned the right to become Americans, they were lucky to be born into it, not earn it.
I could care less if I have your contempt, I would wish they would send all you people to replace the ones over there now, like my grandson whos been there for three years now, maybe you'd learn some lessons on life and living.
I have nothing but contempt for people like you.
2007-08-02 23:09:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by cowboydoc 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Please, put down your liberal Bush-hating handbook for a moment and use your brain. Einstein was a pacifist, so naturally he was against all warfare. Should we have just waited for another mass-murder like 9/11 before acting? Should we wait around, take no action at all for all-time? Just take all the hits and never hit back? That's not in the human psychology nor in our sociology. When one society is harmed by another, then they have the right to take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. If the Muslim world can't control the actions of their citizens, then the non-Muslim world should. Plain and simple, it's about survival. Yes, Darwinian thinking, but hasn't man been all about survival of the fittest? Stop keeping your head buried in the sand and hope for a loving, peaceful, law-abiding world. Measures have had to be taken in the past against evil, and if you think Bush and the troops are evil, then you just haven't been objective enough in your research about the current world situations. Don't sit there and preach about peace and then deride the manner in which that peace has been provided to you.
2007-08-03 11:16:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bob Mc 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Albert was a sissy.
Have you forgotten that after 9/11 President Bush had an approval rating of 90%?
Most of your bad mouthing him now loved him then. You, hypocrites.
He saved our economy from collapsing after 9/11.
You all appreciated the tax cuts you received.
He has put more minorities in positions of power than any other President.
First time homeowners were at an all time high because of President Bush.
He saved millions of Iraqis from being raped, tortured, and killed by Saddam.
The only problem with going to Iraq is that we didn't hit the terrorists hard or fast enough and didn't secure the borders (a problem at home also)
2007-08-03 05:47:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Albert E.'s out look would work if everyone in the world were truly non-violent peaceful people. That's just not reality. If we didn't fight for our freedom, we would all be living in mud huts and in fear of being stoned or killed for walking outside without a male family member in tow(I'm a woman).
Cowboy says it all!!!!! My husband fought in Nam. Those returning heroes were treated shamefully, by the very ones who marched for peace.
2007-08-03 07:05:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by janice 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Blood for oil we didn't get it did we?. Bush will be hanged in Hell like Saddam was here. The others too. Our troops are innocent, just drugged up and forced to fight for this rotten cesspool called America, run by wealthy old farts.Know who told me A marine back from HELL.
2014-10-07 15:20:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
no, they try to protect us and our country, and you call them murder? Iraq is a threat to us and the world, and many people just can't see it. they will do things ten times worse then 9.11 if we are not doing anything now. stupid people like you think Bush is doing it for the OIL, you try to be smart but really an idiot, use your head other than growing hair, will ya?
Yes, use diplomacy forever? so they can have enough time to prepare and attack us deadly. and you and your family might be the next victims, what would you say then, smarty.
2007-08-03 05:52:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Discovery 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
what einstein has to do with any war good or bad is not even a point to make.
war is never popular, people die and mistakes do happen.
would you be making the same case if these terrorist and others where in america or any other country killing peopke with bombs etc...
turning cities into war zones?
2007-08-03 07:01:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by great one 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Well then Einstein wouldn't not have supported Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Al Quada, the Taliban, Hammas, and other jihad groups.
Quit being so damn selective in your finger pointing.
2007-08-03 05:45:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by susandiane311 5
·
5⤊
1⤋
Bush,yes.Members of the armed forces,no.They are only doing the job they are sent to do whether it be right or wrong.
2007-08-03 05:55:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by darwinsfriend AM 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes , everybody can become a murderer .
2007-08-03 09:24:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Brock 3
·
1⤊
1⤋