bismarck wrote:Seems Churchill was right afterall.
I'm sorry, is it just me or have all the f***ing men died?
Gandhi lived to the motto "ahimsa paramo dharma". It translates roughly as "non-violence is the highest virtue".
A patch of land is not worth killing for.
I wonder if you still would've held that view if the boys who died holding off the Japanese from invading Australia had shared your views, or if the Americans had felt similarly after Pearl Harbor.
Gandhi's ideas of non-violent resistance only worked because he had a population of 200 million verses a few thousand British soldiers, functioning within the realm of a colonial system that was way past it's sell by date. I wonder if he would've maintained that opinion if a million man Chinese army had poured into India slaughtering every living thing to take a patch of land that "isn't worth killing/dying for."
And are things like freedom, liberty and democracy no longer worth defending from invaders neither? Shit, if we held this view seventy years ago we could've saved millions of lives and just let the Nazi's have Europe. Afterall, they were just looking for a little Lebensraum. Hardly a principle worth killing for.
It may serve our purposes here to remember that the Rape of Nanjing and countless other atrocities in Europe and Asia during the war occurred only because the regions/countries in question didn't have the means to defend themselves.
Besides which, no one is asking him to kill anyone for a "patch of land". His country requires a few months of service, which needn't be in the military. Instead, he's opted to be a perpetual student to avoid the draft and proudly tells of how at 32 his job at least helps him to pay for his studies. Whereas he could serve in another service (like NIA), and actually do something he might find useful, build contacts, make new friends and then get on with his life without having to think about it anymore.