High sounding words Paul. Do you have anything that can answer your own questions. Such as what to do when confronted with with an invasion or with violent crime?

The world is not your own to make it the way you want it to be, and there is no way to remove the failures of humankind as you've put it.

Any practical answers. Fixing the issues before they happen isn't a practical answer, nor would it attempt to address how to fix the issues or even what those foot causes are.

Paul,

"How do you see war? Like a cricket match, something to be planned and executed, or as a failure to be avoided"

War is a failure to be avoided but if unavoidable then it must be planned for.

I don't like violence but I will and have faced it when necessary and I plan ahead to face it again if I'm so unlucky.

How would you have avoided Japanese expansionism?

Possibly like former Greens' leader Bob Brown; he advocated that Australian soldiers should be taught anger management.

"I say! You chaps shooting that machine gun at us, can't we discuss the matter and reach a consensus?"

Gee whiz, Is Mise. Did you really expect such a 'look-at-moi' overreaction from the usual suspects to your innocent comment on what any normal person would find a very irritating sign? If you did, well done! Like a swarm of crickets coming out into the light for the first time. Blind, and very, very excited

Some time ago I put out a post: "Why I will never support a selective approach on gun violence". Being honest, I won't.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8526&page=0

"The sanctity of human life went out the window for the terrorist when he murdered a defenceless man, stabbed two others and threatened the lives of policemen." - Is Mise

"Policemen are trained to protect. That's their job. And
in this case that's exactly what the officers were
doing. They behaved professionally and extremely competently.
They did what they had to do - shooting the man only when nothing
else worked. They tried pepper sprays and tasers - they
did not work. No one likes to kill another human being but in
this case the police were left with no other choice. The man
had to be stopped before he could inflict more harm and
kill others." - Foxy

They are just two examples of what was put down. The double standards here are huge, and it is quite clear people selectively decide when violence is acceptable and when it is not.

I do not support any violence. The double standards of Is Mise and others, are rampant throughout the above link and comparing them to now - yet this headline says "violence is not OK". Well violence is either O.K or it is not isn't it?

Try telling violent people you don't believe in violence when they are coming at you, you idiots. Perhaps you could sell us tickets to watch the result.

Nathan,

We have acts in our society that contravene our laws.
Acts that are too disruptive to be permitted and ones
that are difficult to control through informal
sanctions alone. By formally declaring certain acts to
be crimes, political authorities can ensure that the
social reaction to them takes place in an orderly
and predictable way. Therefore the law defines the
exact nature of the offense, indicates who is
prohibited from performing it, and specifies the formal,
negative sanction that may be applied to the offender.

Police officers are there to protect and serve.
As for police violence?

Police violence or police brutality is legally defined as
a civil rights violation where officers exercise undue
or excessive force against a civilian. This includes, but
is not limited to - physical or verbal harrassment,
physical or mental injury, property damage, and death.

Nathan, I do not support any violence.

I come from a family that lost their country, family members
and everything dear to them fleeing from the Soviet regime.
A totalitarian regime which used violence and terror against
their own population and that of those they occupied as an
instrument of political and social control.

Tens of millions of innocent people died as a result of these
acts of repression. The acts included gulags in Siberia,
floggin people, pulling out their finger-nails, giving them
electric shocks, hanging them upside down, holding them
under water, burning them with cigarettes and in some
cases, as with my uncle, blinding them or otherwise
mutilating them - so even his sister could not recognise
and identify his body.

I could never support violence. It is morally repehensible
to me and is is a subject I feel very strongly about.
It is personal. Therefore a sign saying VIOLENCE IS NOT OK
may be not taken seriously by some - who can afford to
be flippant about it. I take it very seriously indeed.