Full Version: Peace Advocates
The usually brilliant Dr. Thomas Sowell just published an article that promotes the theory that "peace advocates" actually cause, rather than prevent war.
A few excerpts from this well written article....
Sowell article
He goes on to talk about the current situation in the middle east where frequent "cease fires" have not produced any meaningful resolution to the fundamental conflict in that region.
There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.
"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.
That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?
Sowell then points to multiple examples where the peace movement actually made the situation worse. Most famously...
My questions for debate are:
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
A few excerpts from this well written article....
Sowell article
QUOTE
One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.
"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.
"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.
He goes on to talk about the current situation in the middle east where frequent "cease fires" have not produced any meaningful resolution to the fundamental conflict in that region.
QUOTE
There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.
"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.
That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?
Sowell then points to multiple examples where the peace movement actually made the situation worse. Most famously...
QUOTE
The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."
British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.
Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.
British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.
Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.
My questions for debate are:
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
Here's a link to the article: Pacifists versus peace
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
Peace movements advocate solutions and policies that would work if everyone subscribed to them. If everyone agreed not to have weapons, then disarmament would work. If everyone agreed that attacking your neighbors was wrong, then nobody would do it.
Unfortunately, not everyone will abide by pacifistic notions and thus the policies make conflict more likely. Why? Because bullies look for the weak to prey upon. They fear strength. This is true of nations and of individuals.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
It certainly is a valid philosophical stance. However, it is not a practical one.
Military opponents must be defeated, not kowtowed to. Had the North not decisively defeated the South during the American Civil War, there would have been a continual guerilla war. Since the South was defeated, it knew that force of arms could not accomplish its objectives and it turned to a political solution (which also was defeated). The political solution, while certainly not perfect, didn't result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
Cease fires do not resolve conflicts. Conflicts arise out of disagreements and until the basis of the disagreement is resolved, conflict will continue. It is unfortunate, but conflicts often change the bargaining position of the participants. When the Americans captured Cornwallis at Yorktown, the British decided that the price was too high to continue fighting its rebellious colonies. It wasn't that Britain was unable to continue to fight, it simply decided that the price was too high. Thus peace was achieved through military means.
In the Middle East, as long as the basis of the conflict remains unresolved and the opponents remain undefeated, the conflict will continue. Unfortunately, in this case it isn't open conflict it is terrorism against civilians. This enemy is not easy to find and defeat. Until it is demonstrated that terror tactics will not achieve victory, the conflict will continue. Caving to terrorists simply invites more of the same.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
Peace movements advocate solutions and policies that would work if everyone subscribed to them. If everyone agreed not to have weapons, then disarmament would work. If everyone agreed that attacking your neighbors was wrong, then nobody would do it.
Unfortunately, not everyone will abide by pacifistic notions and thus the policies make conflict more likely. Why? Because bullies look for the weak to prey upon. They fear strength. This is true of nations and of individuals.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
It certainly is a valid philosophical stance. However, it is not a practical one.
QUOTE(Sowell)
There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.
There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.
There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.
Military opponents must be defeated, not kowtowed to. Had the North not decisively defeated the South during the American Civil War, there would have been a continual guerilla war. Since the South was defeated, it knew that force of arms could not accomplish its objectives and it turned to a political solution (which also was defeated). The political solution, while certainly not perfect, didn't result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
Cease fires do not resolve conflicts. Conflicts arise out of disagreements and until the basis of the disagreement is resolved, conflict will continue. It is unfortunate, but conflicts often change the bargaining position of the participants. When the Americans captured Cornwallis at Yorktown, the British decided that the price was too high to continue fighting its rebellious colonies. It wasn't that Britain was unable to continue to fight, it simply decided that the price was too high. Thus peace was achieved through military means.
In the Middle East, as long as the basis of the conflict remains unresolved and the opponents remain undefeated, the conflict will continue. Unfortunately, in this case it isn't open conflict it is terrorism against civilians. This enemy is not easy to find and defeat. Until it is demonstrated that terror tactics will not achieve victory, the conflict will continue. Caving to terrorists simply invites more of the same.
Oh goody now I have my opportunity to show how to question and dismantle the Neocon view on our current foreign policy without resorting to corrupt ideology.
From what I have been reading as of late the current feeling in and amongst the neoconservatives is that most of our troubles now in the Middle East, specifically Iran as they view Lebanon as an extension of Iranian power in the region, and even North Korea can all be contributed to the idea or policy of appeasement.
Sowell argues and Bill Kristol also argued in the Weekly Standard ( I found his article a far better read personally) earlier this week that this conflict with Lebanon and Israel is not the standard Middle East flare up and is now part of the new new war, a war against liberalism and without question a war against us. They claim so many feel so emboldened to take on the mighty powerful USA because we have shown so much weakness...
QUOTE(Kristol)
We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
link
I agree with a lot of what Bill Kristol and even Sowell argue. We have often underestimated our enemies and perceived our desires for peace and security to be universal when they clearly are not. We have often allowed illegitimate governments to flourish and gain power and legitimacy because we felt diplomatic solutions were preferred and ultimately achievable, but that is often not true, as these states gain their legitimacy by remaining illegitimate to our goals.
But I don’t find our desires to seek diplomatic solutions as being weak. Being a liberal, democracy that seeks to protect and encourage pluralist, progressive designs of government and to extend human rights universally I would expect us to remain strong to that ideal. The liberal democracy holds our system of government and recognition of how it is to best serve the people above all else, holding true to this ideal is not weak, but rather shows a strong commitment to and unusual strength even when facing the most barbaric forms of opposition.
The US has indeed shown weakness in the last few years, we have shown a lack of concern and desire to remain steadfast to our most basic ideals, and this lapse of ours has cost us dearly in the eyes of not just the enemy but all those who most desire what we already have. I agree with Bill Kristol ...we have done a poor job of standing up to their invitations to hell and have instead followed them there. And what is the old saying...when in Rome do as the Romans do?
QUOTE(bucket @ Jul 21 2006, 12:22 PM) 
Oh goody now I have my opportunity to show how to question and dismantle the Neocon view on our current foreign policy without resorting to corrupt ideology.
snip...
I agree with a lot of what Bill Kristol and even Sowell argue. We have often underestimated our enemies and perceived our desires for peace and security to be universal when they clearly are not. We have often allowed illegitimate governments to flourish and gain power and legitimacy because we felt diplomatic solutions were preferred and ultimately achievable, but that is often not true, as these states gain their legitimacy by remaining illegitimate to our goals.
But I don’t find our desires to seek diplomatic solutions as being weak. Being a liberal, democracy that seeks to protect and encourage pluralist, progressive designs of government and to extend human rights universally I would expect us to remain strong to that ideal. The liberal democracy holds our system of government and recognition of how it is to best serve the people above all else, holding true to this ideal is not weak, but rather shows a strong commitment to and unusual strength even when facing the most barbaric forms of opposition.
The US has indeed shown weakness in the last few years, we have shown a lack of concern and desire to remain steadfast to our most basic ideals, and this lapse of ours has cost us dearly in the eyes of not just the enemy but all those who most desire what we already have. I agree with Bill Kristol ...we have done a poor job of standing up to their invitations to hell and have instead followed them there. And what is the old saying...when in Rome do as the Romans do?
The question is where do your liberal desires clash with "reality"?
The US has indeed NOT shown weakness in the past few years in our "basic ideals". Instead, we're guilty of following those ideals to Iraq and meeting a very painful reality. And, we are not backing down, in spite of the democrat party's (i.e, liberal's) desire to cut, run, and then blame Bush for the resulting genocide.
The point I was making by referencing Sowell's article is that the "best intentions" of the liberals usually result in the worst possible outcomes.
If Bush has been guilty of anything in the Iraq war and the war in terrorism, it's "idealism", not "fascism". He really buys into the notion that all people were created equal and that they all desire basic human freedom and liberty. That basic concept drives him to our current policies. Pacifists think that all humans are even more naive creatures and that if one just starts hitting others, all others will follow suit.
I think that Sowell raises some interesting points thus my initiation of this debate.
Do peace advocates cause more peace? I say no. HECK no! They cause war, they prolong war, and in the current context of Iraq they encourage, motivate, and excite our enemies to believe, in their hearts to the point where they're willing to risk and lose their lives, that the USA can be beaten back, defeated, and humiliated to the point where they will leave the Islamic world. And thus, Jihad will win.
And they have the democrat party and "peace activists" on their side every single step of the way.
As my dad would say, "thanks a lot!".
1. Do "peace" movements advocate policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
I don't think it can be said they make war more likely, or that their policies result in peace. In truth, they don't foten seem to make any difference. To be quite honest I think this is unnecessarily Manichean - sometimes it pays off to be a hawk, and sometimes it pays off to be a dove. That's just basic game theory. If hawks always won, everyone would be at war with everyone else all the time. But most of us are perfectly happy to be peaceful most of the time. Have an army, by all means. Equip and train them well. But don't kid yourself that they have to be used.
Evidence? How about Switzerland?
Without duplicating the planet and operating one completely hawkishly, and one completely doveishly, we will never know for certain which is worse.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
It depends who we're talking about. Gandhi achieved a lot without firing a shot. George Washington was just as heroic (I probably should say "even more so" given the company
) and he found it necessary to resort to war to gain his country's independence.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
Wars end when someone one either side signs a "peace treaty". Generally speaking the fighting stops - the firing ceases - for long enough to do that. The fighting is generally only done to establish who will get the best terms in the peace treaty. If people could swallow their pride and negotiate over disputed subjects, with everything on the table and nothing hidden away, war would not be necessary. Obviously enough, people ARE proud (often with little justification), and so wars happen.
This is more than a little simplistic and disingenuous. There were calls to disarm, certainly, and there were loud voices for "appeasement" of Hitler. It was even government policy for a time. However, it is very doubtful indeed (the politest way I can think of to say it) that, had the British government had been more hawkish in the late 1930s, whether war would have been avoided altogether. More likely, it would have just started sooner. "Peace" movements may not bring peace, but "war" movements always get what they want, and the end result is that people die either way.
But, if peace movements always cause dreadful consequences, could you explain how the peace-movement -led US withdrawal from Vietnam has had dreadful consequences for... well, anyone, really?
I don't think it can be said they make war more likely, or that their policies result in peace. In truth, they don't foten seem to make any difference. To be quite honest I think this is unnecessarily Manichean - sometimes it pays off to be a hawk, and sometimes it pays off to be a dove. That's just basic game theory. If hawks always won, everyone would be at war with everyone else all the time. But most of us are perfectly happy to be peaceful most of the time. Have an army, by all means. Equip and train them well. But don't kid yourself that they have to be used.
Evidence? How about Switzerland?
Without duplicating the planet and operating one completely hawkishly, and one completely doveishly, we will never know for certain which is worse.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
It depends who we're talking about. Gandhi achieved a lot without firing a shot. George Washington was just as heroic (I probably should say "even more so" given the company
) and he found it necessary to resort to war to gain his country's independence. 3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
Wars end when someone one either side signs a "peace treaty". Generally speaking the fighting stops - the firing ceases - for long enough to do that. The fighting is generally only done to establish who will get the best terms in the peace treaty. If people could swallow their pride and negotiate over disputed subjects, with everything on the table and nothing hidden away, war would not be necessary. Obviously enough, people ARE proud (often with little justification), and so wars happen.
QUOTE
The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."
British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.
Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.
British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.
Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.
This is more than a little simplistic and disingenuous. There were calls to disarm, certainly, and there were loud voices for "appeasement" of Hitler. It was even government policy for a time. However, it is very doubtful indeed (the politest way I can think of to say it) that, had the British government had been more hawkish in the late 1930s, whether war would have been avoided altogether. More likely, it would have just started sooner. "Peace" movements may not bring peace, but "war" movements always get what they want, and the end result is that people die either way.
But, if peace movements always cause dreadful consequences, could you explain how the peace-movement -led US withdrawal from Vietnam has had dreadful consequences for... well, anyone, really?
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
No, people that do not want peace make war more likely.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
A pacifist makes a decision on how to carry him or herself in regards to current civilization, so they are open to natural selection regardless of this still. If they live and prosper or die out should probably be based on the aspect of individual to society, on a society level I would not preach that people be pacifists because not everyone shares in this mindset, at an individual level one could probably be a pacifist and survive that way in a society.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
I think those people should just continue to do what they have been doing for sixty years and it all makes sense and works to everyone’s benefit.
No, people that do not want peace make war more likely.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
A pacifist makes a decision on how to carry him or herself in regards to current civilization, so they are open to natural selection regardless of this still. If they live and prosper or die out should probably be based on the aspect of individual to society, on a society level I would not preach that people be pacifists because not everyone shares in this mindset, at an individual level one could probably be a pacifist and survive that way in a society.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
I think those people should just continue to do what they have been doing for sixty years and it all makes sense and works to everyone’s benefit.
First of all, I think there is a happy medium somewhere here. At one extreme, using violence to make the world act towards each other as you would like them to is unrealistic, and entirely counterproductive. On the other hand, denying that there is could ever be a need for military action is equally unrealistic.
I’ll offer the analogy of this forum. How well would it operate if the rules were not enforceable? What if the only action mods or admins could use is the mod note….”Tsk, tsk, be nice to each other”. The board would be a mess in no time; spammers would simply take over and the reasonable would be drowned out. On the other hand, the site rarely does need to do much more than the mod note because the power of enforcement is actually available….and sometimes it is used. In the real world there is no equivalent of the simple omniscient overriding delete key, nor is there a jedi-mind trick option. Violence can only be counteracted by some responding threat. The threat might be economic or physical, but the result is people will suffer if it is employed.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
It depends. Peace movements don't work well with dictatorships, but they can work well in societies that have press freedom and populations with a large amount of influence over state policy. Ghandi and MLK are good examples. But such tactics would not have worked against Mao, Hitler, Imperialist Japan, the Khmer Rouge, ect...
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
This was Ghandi's advice during the Battle of Britain: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." Yes, that would have worked nicely.
I assume by that time many of his European followers probably grew weary of his meanderings and noticed that what worked as a resistance for British occupation in India wouldn't work very well with more authoritarian regimes.
On the eve of Pearl Harbor, Time magazine reported that US soldiers were booing newsreel shots of Roosevelt and General Marshall, while cheering outspoken isolationists. Funny how one event can so radically change the mind of many. Idealism meet reality.
Unfortunately, by that time pacifism had taken such a strong hold (the Kellogg-Briand Pact was supposed to end aggressive war), and the military was so dilapidated it took a long time to train the necessary forces and produce the needed equipment. In the age of modern warfare this wouldn't even be possible. You can't turn a sewing machine factory into a jet airplane factory overnight today. So it’s best to be prepared but only resort to war as a last option. It should, however, be an option.
Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
As I am far away from the threats, free to sit by basking in a warm glow of moral superiority-by-proxy as I read news clippings and could criticize everyone engaged in fighting without coming up with a better alternative, I will refrain from answering this. It’s up to the people facing the line of fire.
I think it’s worth mentioning that Hezbollah has built an extensive underground network, including "fortified underground bunkers some 40 meters (roughly 120 feet) underground, along with mass weapons caches" and communications systems. If I were Israel, I would probably do what I could to disarm this group that wishes them annihilated before agreeing to anything.
I’ll offer the analogy of this forum. How well would it operate if the rules were not enforceable? What if the only action mods or admins could use is the mod note….”Tsk, tsk, be nice to each other”. The board would be a mess in no time; spammers would simply take over and the reasonable would be drowned out. On the other hand, the site rarely does need to do much more than the mod note because the power of enforcement is actually available….and sometimes it is used. In the real world there is no equivalent of the simple omniscient overriding delete key, nor is there a jedi-mind trick option. Violence can only be counteracted by some responding threat. The threat might be economic or physical, but the result is people will suffer if it is employed.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
It depends. Peace movements don't work well with dictatorships, but they can work well in societies that have press freedom and populations with a large amount of influence over state policy. Ghandi and MLK are good examples. But such tactics would not have worked against Mao, Hitler, Imperialist Japan, the Khmer Rouge, ect...
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
This was Ghandi's advice during the Battle of Britain: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." Yes, that would have worked nicely.
I assume by that time many of his European followers probably grew weary of his meanderings and noticed that what worked as a resistance for British occupation in India wouldn't work very well with more authoritarian regimes. On the eve of Pearl Harbor, Time magazine reported that US soldiers were booing newsreel shots of Roosevelt and General Marshall, while cheering outspoken isolationists. Funny how one event can so radically change the mind of many. Idealism meet reality.
Unfortunately, by that time pacifism had taken such a strong hold (the Kellogg-Briand Pact was supposed to end aggressive war), and the military was so dilapidated it took a long time to train the necessary forces and produce the needed equipment. In the age of modern warfare this wouldn't even be possible. You can't turn a sewing machine factory into a jet airplane factory overnight today. So it’s best to be prepared but only resort to war as a last option. It should, however, be an option.
Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
As I am far away from the threats, free to sit by basking in a warm glow of moral superiority-by-proxy as I read news clippings and could criticize everyone engaged in fighting without coming up with a better alternative, I will refrain from answering this. It’s up to the people facing the line of fire.
I think it’s worth mentioning that Hezbollah has built an extensive underground network, including "fortified underground bunkers some 40 meters (roughly 120 feet) underground, along with mass weapons caches" and communications systems. If I were Israel, I would probably do what I could to disarm this group that wishes them annihilated before agreeing to anything.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
Without a doubt peace movements make war more likely. As the quote goes, "all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing".
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
Pacifism, as it is usually described, is an invitation to bullies. The legacy of Ghandi is a perfect example of what pacifism brings about when it meets with real tyranny. India divided along ethnic and religious lines, a constant state of war over Kashmir and a private arms race to create nuclear weapons.
Its worth noting that the current stand off between India and Pakistan is not due to pacifism, but to mutually assured destruction. When neither side can move against the other, so it seems cooler heads prevail... which in this instance means the secular military of Pakistan takes over the running of the country to protect the nation against its own folly.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
The latter.
Without a doubt peace movements make war more likely. As the quote goes, "all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing".
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
Pacifism, as it is usually described, is an invitation to bullies. The legacy of Ghandi is a perfect example of what pacifism brings about when it meets with real tyranny. India divided along ethnic and religious lines, a constant state of war over Kashmir and a private arms race to create nuclear weapons.
Its worth noting that the current stand off between India and Pakistan is not due to pacifism, but to mutually assured destruction. When neither side can move against the other, so it seems cooler heads prevail... which in this instance means the secular military of Pakistan takes over the running of the country to protect the nation against its own folly.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
The latter.
Then to agree with the philosophy that you cant live in peace because others do not care to or want to or think outside of that means basically for any single person or a nation to want to live in peace ever it has to destroy all others, wow, that’s a winning philosophy if I ever heard one.
So lets get down to business and stop letting our nukes sit around for no good reason, we are only going to prolong the problem because trying to live in peace or wanting it is a fallacy and an illusion.
how about this is more of people trying to convince each other that the current situation of the world and of course its past as it relates to problems should be handled in a certain manner that certain people outline or define and those methods of action which in this case advocates for peace should be abolished and people overall should favor the destruction of each other as the real means to approach peace, in my opinion people who spew this garbage should be euthanized to end the cancer they are as people, and moreover its people that favor war as a reward to something better in there perception just like a liar that causes problems.
So in that light we should not blame Hitler, nor radical Islam because they simply know that the only way to peace is through the death of millions of people and the destruction of anything they simply don’t like, darn I always thought of them in a rather bad light but now I can see the error in my ways! For that matter, I guess it was not to wrong to kill Jesus and those other hippies he rolled with simply because the Romans knew that to keep the peace you have to destroy things, ME UG SMASH YOU!!!!!
Seriously I cant help but to laugh at this hypocrisy in the major, people are drunk on something that’s what it has to be you know, this is how you end up with right wing Christian marines, seriously need to understand our nature people.
Its these same type of feelings that kill all progress or ability to live in peace and understanding, we perpetual as a specie have to live in this combat zone with our ignorance and of course take everything else down with us as we crawl through a minefield to discuss a business deal through barbwire.
So lets get down to business and stop letting our nukes sit around for no good reason, we are only going to prolong the problem because trying to live in peace or wanting it is a fallacy and an illusion.
how about this is more of people trying to convince each other that the current situation of the world and of course its past as it relates to problems should be handled in a certain manner that certain people outline or define and those methods of action which in this case advocates for peace should be abolished and people overall should favor the destruction of each other as the real means to approach peace, in my opinion people who spew this garbage should be euthanized to end the cancer they are as people, and moreover its people that favor war as a reward to something better in there perception just like a liar that causes problems.
So in that light we should not blame Hitler, nor radical Islam because they simply know that the only way to peace is through the death of millions of people and the destruction of anything they simply don’t like, darn I always thought of them in a rather bad light but now I can see the error in my ways! For that matter, I guess it was not to wrong to kill Jesus and those other hippies he rolled with simply because the Romans knew that to keep the peace you have to destroy things, ME UG SMASH YOU!!!!!
Seriously I cant help but to laugh at this hypocrisy in the major, people are drunk on something that’s what it has to be you know, this is how you end up with right wing Christian marines, seriously need to understand our nature people.
Its these same type of feelings that kill all progress or ability to live in peace and understanding, we perpetual as a specie have to live in this combat zone with our ignorance and of course take everything else down with us as we crawl through a minefield to discuss a business deal through barbwire.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jul 21 2006, 11:44 AM)
The question is where do your liberal desires clash with "reality"?
The same question, could of course be asked of the "hawks", as you so accurately point out in your next line:
QUOTE
The US has indeed NOT shown weakness in the past few years in our "basic ideals". Instead, we're guilty of following those ideals to Iraq and meeting a very painful reality.
No kidding. Except, the 'ideals" we followed seemed to change from day to day, and included attacking Iraq for the some of the same things we are letting slide in Iran and Korea. You know, that whole WMD thing?
QUOTE
And, we are not backing down, in spite of the democrat party's (i.e, liberal's) desire to cut, run, and then blame Bush for the resulting genocide.
Question - what would we have had to "cut and run" from, if we hadn't entered Iraq to begin with? What would be any different, except that we wouldn't be embroiled in a conflict of our own making?
QUOTE
The point I was making by referencing Sowell's article is that the "best intentions" of the liberals usually result in the worst possible outcomes.
And what "outcome" in Iraq would be worse now, than what we already have today, if we hadn't made the decision to go into Iraq?
QUOTE
Do peace advocates cause more peace? I say no. HECK no! They cause war.....
Really? Is it the peace advocates that cause war, or is it those that start the war? I guess you just can't win if you're a liberal around here. Then again, there seems to be some measure of hypocrisy, or at the least a dichotomy in the thinking of some conservatives here. It goes like this:
When some liberals suggest that maybe it's America's stance in the world that engenders hatred of us in the Middle east and elsewhere, and was maybe the cause of 9/11, that's a "total fabrication". It's soley the fault of the terrorists and dictators. They are the "cause" of the conflict.
On the other hand, it's now the "liberals" fault that we're being attacked, because wanting peace is the "cause" of all these conflicts.
So, which is it, LH? Is it the liberals' fault for causing wars, or is it the terrorists and the dictators who actually fire the first shot?
QUOTE
they prolong war, and in the current context of Iraq they encourage, motivate, and excite our enemies to believe, in their hearts to the point where they're willing to risk and lose their lives, that the USA can be beaten back, defeated, and humiliated to the point where they will leave the Islamic world.
Of course, as I noted above, there would have been no "hope" to give them, if we hadn't recklessly gone in to begin with, now would there? Besides, if you're honest, you'll admit that whenever we leave, and however we leave, the "jihadists" are going to claim it was all due to them regardless.
QUOTE
And they have the democrat party and "peace activists" on their side every single step of the way.
Gee, yet another troll from the infamous LH. Who'd of thunk it? You know, of course that there were very few "peace activists" in this country, or Democrats for that matter, that had a problem with going into Afghanistan after 9/11, right?
I certainly wouldn't have had a problem with putting everything we have in Iraq right now into Afghanistan to start with, to eliminate the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. My problem is, and always has been, that we took our eye off the ball, for a new "shiny, pretty" in Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11, was not a terrorist controlled state the way the Taliban controlled Afghanistan. But we turned what would have been a war of righteous retaliation into just another "police action", while we went after Saddam because he was a "bad guy". Too bad we didn't think of that when we helped install him and prop him up in power.
In either case, LH, you have a question to answer, I believe. Are we to blame for attacks on us, because we desire "peace", or are those attacks, those wars, strictly the fault of those individuals, organizations and countries, who don't give a damn about peace?
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
It depends highly on the circumstances of each given situation. Painting such a broad brush on peace movements would be intellectually dishonest. I think that peace movements are both good and bad depending on those who spearhead it. The wish for peace is absolutely a very noble and admirable endeavor. But sometimes peace is not peace but just a prolonging of the status quo. Its truly a balancing of principles. If "peace" allows for the sufferring of millions in individual nations...is there truly peace?
The policies that peace advocates (lets call them "doves") pursue can sometimes be just as harmful then those of the hawks. This may seem strange to some, but in some parts of the world, diplomacy is not the greatest instrument for stability and peace. Strength and force are the only concepts that many understand and they use our noble concepts of diplomacy against us.
moif quoted Edmund Burke, but ill quote Henry Kissinger when he said: If peace is equated simply with the absence of war, it can become abject pacifism that turns the world over to the most ruthless. This brings us to the fundamental question of just war and whether or not true victory can be achieved through force of arms. Is there never justification for fighting for beliefs and for people? I think thats just a question that we all must come up with on our own.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
Pacifism is definately something to be admired. The concept that war should not occur and that it should be avoided at all costs. But there is a line. On the one side you have those who know rationally of instances where war is necessary and on the other side you have those who think it is wrong under every circumstance. World War II is i suppose the perfect example. We couldn't be a pacifist nation in that situation it just wouldnt have been possible without sacrificing both our citizens and our principles.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
I think John Bolton is dead right. A cease-fire to the current situation is, as i have said in another thread, like taking aspiring for a broken arm. You are not addressing why the conflict arised which is the continual existence of Hezbollah and its occupation of Southern Lebanon. If that is not addressed the conflict will just occur again and again.
It depends highly on the circumstances of each given situation. Painting such a broad brush on peace movements would be intellectually dishonest. I think that peace movements are both good and bad depending on those who spearhead it. The wish for peace is absolutely a very noble and admirable endeavor. But sometimes peace is not peace but just a prolonging of the status quo. Its truly a balancing of principles. If "peace" allows for the sufferring of millions in individual nations...is there truly peace?
The policies that peace advocates (lets call them "doves") pursue can sometimes be just as harmful then those of the hawks. This may seem strange to some, but in some parts of the world, diplomacy is not the greatest instrument for stability and peace. Strength and force are the only concepts that many understand and they use our noble concepts of diplomacy against us.
moif quoted Edmund Burke, but ill quote Henry Kissinger when he said: If peace is equated simply with the absence of war, it can become abject pacifism that turns the world over to the most ruthless. This brings us to the fundamental question of just war and whether or not true victory can be achieved through force of arms. Is there never justification for fighting for beliefs and for people? I think thats just a question that we all must come up with on our own.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
Pacifism is definately something to be admired. The concept that war should not occur and that it should be avoided at all costs. But there is a line. On the one side you have those who know rationally of instances where war is necessary and on the other side you have those who think it is wrong under every circumstance. World War II is i suppose the perfect example. We couldn't be a pacifist nation in that situation it just wouldnt have been possible without sacrificing both our citizens and our principles.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
I think John Bolton is dead right. A cease-fire to the current situation is, as i have said in another thread, like taking aspiring for a broken arm. You are not addressing why the conflict arised which is the continual existence of Hezbollah and its occupation of Southern Lebanon. If that is not addressed the conflict will just occur again and again.
QUOTE(Julian @ Jul 21 2006, 02:35 PM)
But, if peace movements always cause dreadful consequences, could you explain how the peace-movement -led US withdrawal from Vietnam has had dreadful consequences for... well, anyone, really?
More than 2 million human beings were slaughtered by the communists when the Americans left S.E. Asia in the early 1970's. The "reformers" as the "peace movement" tried to characterize them, committed genocide when they rolled into power in Cambodia and South Vietnam.
The "peace movement" led to the biggest sell-out in the history of the United States and genocide.
That was a "dreadful consequence" by any measure.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
More likely. The hawks get up in their shorts and defy the peaceniks, thus rushing off to foolish conflicts. Once in the conflict, getting out becomes very, very difficult.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
This depends on who is interpreting history.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
I don't know, does anyone?
Israel is teaching Hamas a lesson: Don't mess with Israel unless you can come back with superior firepower.
So, it can also be concluded that war begets war. What's the answer to that?
I don't know, does anyone?
Personally, I think it's population control that's built into the species. Fight until sick of it, sign the treaties, reproduce, start another war, fight until sick of it . . . that pattern gets repeated in history.
More likely. The hawks get up in their shorts and defy the peaceniks, thus rushing off to foolish conflicts. Once in the conflict, getting out becomes very, very difficult.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
This depends on who is interpreting history.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
I don't know, does anyone?
Israel is teaching Hamas a lesson: Don't mess with Israel unless you can come back with superior firepower.
So, it can also be concluded that war begets war. What's the answer to that?
I don't know, does anyone?
Personally, I think it's population control that's built into the species. Fight until sick of it, sign the treaties, reproduce, start another war, fight until sick of it . . . that pattern gets repeated in history.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
This is a pretty funny idea. These questions are either confused, or are just some boring Ann Coulter sort of game.
First of all, to equate peace movements with pacifism makes no sense. Pacifism is a personal thing, whereas peace movements are usually about opposition to specific wars. Pacifists will likely be a part of any peace movement, but peace movements are not about pacifism. Whether or not one can change the world through one's actions, pacifism is a personal choice.
One can make all the tenuous connections one likes, but the causes of war are not people who seek peace. To claim so is simply ridiculous. Pacifism has a well thought out history; perhaps those who equate it with "doing nothing" should study this history.
1. No. People who advocate war cause war to be more likely. Simple.
2. Admired. History and the teachings of people from Christ to Gandhi show us this quite clearly. I don't recall any "blessed are the warmakers" bits from the Sermon on the Mount. I must have missed that part.
3. Cease fires are always a start. They are never a final solution. However, it is quite doubtful cooler heads will ever prevail without them.
I don't even know how to respond to this kind of thinking. You argue so strongly for personal responsibility elsewhere, yet here you are stretching, grasping, to find people to blame who have nothing to do with war. Really this is pretty basic. People who advocate violence, and people who commit violence, are responsible for that violence. What's the next topic going to be? Slaves caused the institution of slavery? Women are to blame for men who beat the crap out of them? And you know what causes muggings? People who don't mug, that's who!!
It's quite possible we could achieve a sort of "peace" by total, all out war against everyone who looks at us funny. It would be, as history shows, a "peace" only achieved and held by fear and power. For pacifists, and I proudly call myself one, peace can only come about through peaceful actions. What victors call "peace" is better called "dominance." Such "peace" will never last, because it always creates new enemies.
Real people do not like war or violence. They must be convinced to kill other humans; they do not do it naturally. It is by recognizing this that peace can come about. And I believe that this can only happen by individual people refusing to play a part in the shams and tricks that convince them they must kill others.
To anyone who thinks violence is an acceptable means to end violence, I can only hope and pray that they some day come to understand what peace is, and what it means.
This is a rather interesting view of history. Your conclusion rests on the erroneous notion that the history of Southeast Asia begins with American involvement in Vietnam.
Well this is an interesting idea. So now Gandhi's pacifism is the reason for India's dividing? I'd like to see some sort of connective thinking, besides writing the two down in the same paragraph.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
This is a pretty funny idea. These questions are either confused, or are just some boring Ann Coulter sort of game.
First of all, to equate peace movements with pacifism makes no sense. Pacifism is a personal thing, whereas peace movements are usually about opposition to specific wars. Pacifists will likely be a part of any peace movement, but peace movements are not about pacifism. Whether or not one can change the world through one's actions, pacifism is a personal choice.
One can make all the tenuous connections one likes, but the causes of war are not people who seek peace. To claim so is simply ridiculous. Pacifism has a well thought out history; perhaps those who equate it with "doing nothing" should study this history.
1. No. People who advocate war cause war to be more likely. Simple.
2. Admired. History and the teachings of people from Christ to Gandhi show us this quite clearly. I don't recall any "blessed are the warmakers" bits from the Sermon on the Mount. I must have missed that part.
3. Cease fires are always a start. They are never a final solution. However, it is quite doubtful cooler heads will ever prevail without them.
QUOTE(lordhelmet)
Do peace advocates cause more peace? I say no. HECK no! They cause war, they prolong war, and in the current context of Iraq they encourage, motivate, and excite our enemies to believe, in their hearts to the point where they're willing to risk and lose their lives, that the USA can be beaten back, defeated, and humiliated to the point where they will leave the Islamic world. And thus, Jihad will win.
I don't even know how to respond to this kind of thinking. You argue so strongly for personal responsibility elsewhere, yet here you are stretching, grasping, to find people to blame who have nothing to do with war. Really this is pretty basic. People who advocate violence, and people who commit violence, are responsible for that violence. What's the next topic going to be? Slaves caused the institution of slavery? Women are to blame for men who beat the crap out of them? And you know what causes muggings? People who don't mug, that's who!!
It's quite possible we could achieve a sort of "peace" by total, all out war against everyone who looks at us funny. It would be, as history shows, a "peace" only achieved and held by fear and power. For pacifists, and I proudly call myself one, peace can only come about through peaceful actions. What victors call "peace" is better called "dominance." Such "peace" will never last, because it always creates new enemies.
Real people do not like war or violence. They must be convinced to kill other humans; they do not do it naturally. It is by recognizing this that peace can come about. And I believe that this can only happen by individual people refusing to play a part in the shams and tricks that convince them they must kill others.
To anyone who thinks violence is an acceptable means to end violence, I can only hope and pray that they some day come to understand what peace is, and what it means.
QUOTE
More than 2 million human beings were slaughtered by the communists when the Americans left S.E. Asia in the early 1970's. The "reformers" as the "peace movement" tried to characterize them, committed genocide when they rolled into power in Cambodia and South Vietnam.
The "peace movement" led to the biggest sell-out in the history of the United States and genocide.
The "peace movement" led to the biggest sell-out in the history of the United States and genocide.
This is a rather interesting view of history. Your conclusion rests on the erroneous notion that the history of Southeast Asia begins with American involvement in Vietnam.
QUOTE(moif)
Pacifism, as it is usually described, is an invitation to bullies. The legacy of Ghandi is a perfect example of what pacifism brings about when it meets with real tyranny. India divided along ethnic and religious lines, a constant state of war over Kashmir and a private arms race to create nuclear weapons.
Well this is an interesting idea. So now Gandhi's pacifism is the reason for India's dividing? I'd like to see some sort of connective thinking, besides writing the two down in the same paragraph.
QUOTE(gordo @ Jul 21 2006, 06:26 PM)
certain people outline or define and those methods of action which in this case advocates for peace should be abolished and people overall should favor the destruction of each other as the real means to approach peace, in my opinion people who spew this garbage should be euthanized to end the cancer they are as people, and moreover its people that favor war as a reward to something better in there perception just like a liar that causes problems.
Those who revile peace advocates should be euthanized? That must be one of the most ironic statements I've ever read.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jul 22 2006, 07:17 AM)
I don't even know how to respond to this kind of thinking. You argue so strongly for personal responsibility elsewhere, yet here you are stretching, grasping, to find people to blame who have nothing to do with war. Really this is pretty basic. People who advocate violence, and people who commit violence, are responsible for that violence. What's the next topic going to be? Slaves caused the institution of slavery? Women are to blame for men who beat the crap out of them? And you know what causes muggings? People who don't mug, that's who!!
I think it could be argued that those who permitted slavery served a great part in the institution of slavery. There weren't that many actual slave owners. Just watching and saying, "tsk, tsk" wouldn't do much to end it. Furthermore, if violence against women or mugging was tolerated there would certainly be more muggings and violence against women. The state does hold a responsibility in the matter of preventing such things via the use of force (the police don't just write a nasty-gram), and that wouldn't be possible without enforcers. Of course, if everyone did the right thing there would be no need for enforcment, but that isn't reality and I doubt it will ever be. We can dream, but (to turn the argument around) I wouldn't blame those enforcers for violence against women, slavery, and mugging, nor would I blame the state for performing its job in that regard.
The devil for your argument and mine of course, is in the details. The state can overdue this and become abusive and everyone loses personal freedom; or on the flip side, the laws could be so lax that criminals take over and everyone loses their security and thereby personal freedom.
It works also on the large scale with war and geopolitics (**). Without the power of enforcement laws are just well-worded wishes on paper. Exhibit A: The UNIFIL. Lying down and doing nothing, in such a case, rather than doing the j-o-b, has done no one a service and didn't avert violence, quite the opposite in fact.
**Of course in the case of geopolitics the situation is often more violent when that sort of confrontation becomes necessary. Policemen here are operating in an environment where most everyone respects the law and the government has control. Soldiers operate in environments near anarchy which is vastly more dangerous, and therefore more direct and violent.
Edited to add: Interesting link about how it was in 1939.
Excellent post Leder!
I've thinking about the idea of peace movements provoking greater conflict and asking myself just what is, or who are these peace movements? Are we just talking about people with placards who demonstrate against war, or is there are greater force at work?
For it seems to me that a person with an anti-war T shirt and a peace symbol placard is not a cause of warfare. Rather it is the many political voices which surround the common peace demonstrator, espcially those that are disguised and which promote a political point of view which often regards itself as being anti war.
As a young man I used to listen to Pink Floyd a lot, and still do on occaision. I never 'got' the message of Roger Water's lyrics, though I understood what he was saying. To me, the message never really hit home until now, years later when I saw Waters giving interviews about the security wall in Israel. Now it is apparent to me that Waters is not just against war in general, but in point of fact he is peddling a particular political point of view and uses popular music as his means to this end. I've often noted that the left has the coolest music and I think this is because those on the left can appeal to people's sensibility's because they frame their arguments as being opposed to a 'war mongering right'.
By itself, an antiwar platform is competely valid, but when antiwar protestors actually take sides in conflicts, such as we see Roger Waters doing against Israel, and as we see with westerners going to the Palestinian territories to be human shields then they are no longer simply protesting war or injustice, but making a judgement against one side in favour of the other.
Another more concrete example of what I mean can be seen in recent remarks by a Dutch politician called Jan Marijnissen:
I have to laugh when I read arguments like this. Islam has been around a lot longer than the USA or Israel and it has undergone many periods of religious and militaristic fervour. I see nothing in the Middle East, or anywhere else, to suggest that Islamic terrorism is caused by anything other than religious fanatacism. The notion that Islamic terrorism is some how comparable to Dutch resistance begs the conclusion that the western nations, or maybe just Israel has become the Third Reich...
Two things immediely spring to mind when reading Marijnissen's words. The first is simple enough. That without the help of the USA and UK, Holland would never have managed to liberate herself and would have eventually been annexed by the Soviet Union. The same is true for Denmark, where there are just as many Socialists peddling the same line as Marijnissen. In Norway a famous cartoonist who refused to draw Mohammed recently published a picture of Ehud Olmert as the camp commandant in 'Schindlers List' sitting on his balconey with a rifle, shooting people in the distance. The comparison was bold and unmistakable and only one of many such comparisons made by the 'peace loving socialists'.
The second thought concerns something said by the former head of the Danish armed forces, Major General Kjeld Hillingsø:
Link.
As I understand it, the point being made is that Europe's socialist/antiwar/pro Muslim perspective is no different from the studied indifference of the Evian conference which gave Hitler the excuses he needed to implement his plans for the extermination of the Jewish people.
edited to add:
I see quarkhead has posted whilst I was ranting...
Ghandi's legacy was what it was. His leadership worked fine against the British who essentially supported him for the most part and empathised with his moral arguments (up until the Germans attacked Britian at any rate) but the same policy of pacifism rendered India in two and caused the formation of Muslim Pakistan and ultimately to Ghandi's eventual assassination. Millions ere displaced and the two countries have essentially been at war ever since. That is essentially what Ghandi and his policies accomplished. India was independent, but only because the majority of the British agreed with Ghandi. Pakistan was lost because the majority of Indian Muslims did not agree with Ghandi.
What else do you want me to say?
I've thinking about the idea of peace movements provoking greater conflict and asking myself just what is, or who are these peace movements? Are we just talking about people with placards who demonstrate against war, or is there are greater force at work?
For it seems to me that a person with an anti-war T shirt and a peace symbol placard is not a cause of warfare. Rather it is the many political voices which surround the common peace demonstrator, espcially those that are disguised and which promote a political point of view which often regards itself as being anti war.
As a young man I used to listen to Pink Floyd a lot, and still do on occaision. I never 'got' the message of Roger Water's lyrics, though I understood what he was saying. To me, the message never really hit home until now, years later when I saw Waters giving interviews about the security wall in Israel. Now it is apparent to me that Waters is not just against war in general, but in point of fact he is peddling a particular political point of view and uses popular music as his means to this end. I've often noted that the left has the coolest music and I think this is because those on the left can appeal to people's sensibility's because they frame their arguments as being opposed to a 'war mongering right'.
By itself, an antiwar platform is competely valid, but when antiwar protestors actually take sides in conflicts, such as we see Roger Waters doing against Israel, and as we see with westerners going to the Palestinian territories to be human shields then they are no longer simply protesting war or injustice, but making a judgement against one side in favour of the other.
Another more concrete example of what I mean can be seen in recent remarks by a Dutch politician called Jan Marijnissen:
QUOTE(NIS)
"Terrorism occurs in all times and places and its objective is usually to make things as unpleasant as possible for the occupier", he says in an interview for Penthouse magazine.
"During World War II, Dutch people thwarted nazi Germany's destruction machine by blowing up town halls, because this was where the Jews were registered. Things are not all that different in the Middle East. Islamic fundamentalism, including the terrorist wing, is a reaction to Israel's occupation of Palestine, to America's presence in the Middle East and to the West's support of undemocratic regimes in the Middle East."
If Marijnissen had to choose he would rather see Iran build up a nuclear arsenal than US military intervention in that country. "If I had to make a choice between the two options then at this moment I would certainly say: do not attack, it is the most stupid choice possible". According to the SP leader, the Iran issue can be traced back to American hypocrisy. "Surely it is immoral to deny countries their right to nuclear energy when you own nuclear weapons yourself!?"
Link."During World War II, Dutch people thwarted nazi Germany's destruction machine by blowing up town halls, because this was where the Jews were registered. Things are not all that different in the Middle East. Islamic fundamentalism, including the terrorist wing, is a reaction to Israel's occupation of Palestine, to America's presence in the Middle East and to the West's support of undemocratic regimes in the Middle East."
If Marijnissen had to choose he would rather see Iran build up a nuclear arsenal than US military intervention in that country. "If I had to make a choice between the two options then at this moment I would certainly say: do not attack, it is the most stupid choice possible". According to the SP leader, the Iran issue can be traced back to American hypocrisy. "Surely it is immoral to deny countries their right to nuclear energy when you own nuclear weapons yourself!?"
I have to laugh when I read arguments like this. Islam has been around a lot longer than the USA or Israel and it has undergone many periods of religious and militaristic fervour. I see nothing in the Middle East, or anywhere else, to suggest that Islamic terrorism is caused by anything other than religious fanatacism. The notion that Islamic terrorism is some how comparable to Dutch resistance begs the conclusion that the western nations, or maybe just Israel has become the Third Reich...
Two things immediely spring to mind when reading Marijnissen's words. The first is simple enough. That without the help of the USA and UK, Holland would never have managed to liberate herself and would have eventually been annexed by the Soviet Union. The same is true for Denmark, where there are just as many Socialists peddling the same line as Marijnissen. In Norway a famous cartoonist who refused to draw Mohammed recently published a picture of Ehud Olmert as the camp commandant in 'Schindlers List' sitting on his balconey with a rifle, shooting people in the distance. The comparison was bold and unmistakable and only one of many such comparisons made by the 'peace loving socialists'.
The second thought concerns something said by the former head of the Danish armed forces, Major General Kjeld Hillingsø:
QUOTE(Jyllands Posten)
The caricature criss clarified the conflict between Israel and the Arabs [for Hillingsøe]. One hears again and again the comparison that the Muslim are become the Jews of our modern age, but they are not. Our times Jews are our times Jews. In Europe, USA and over all in the world, the Muslims of today are the Muslims of today.
"If Israel falls, then Europe will fall also" so says Major General Kjeld Hillingsø. It is a broad but sharp analysis. The fight between the Israeli's and the Palestinians is a war between European and Arabic social perceptions, between the European and Arabic populations.
The European establishment leans towards the Arabic side. Europe's media and intelligentsia have much the same tendency. The situation of the Jews is not much different from how it was under the negotiations at Evian in 1938.
In July 1938, 32 nations met in the French town of Evian. Nation after nation expressed sympathy for the Jews of Germany, but only one nation, The Dominican Republic, opened its doors to Jewish refugee's. No other nation acted. Hitler commented that it was clear for all to see, no one wanted the Jews, and he carried on with his plans for extermination.
Only later did it dawn on people what was going on and then we had the world war. The war was essentially a war against the Jews, but we not supposed to say that. Is time Europe's politicians woke up, and the media also (and the intelligentsia?) The Munich agreement and what came after it, awaits us.
During a press breifing a few months ago, Prime Minister [of Denmark] Anders Fogh Rasmussen expressed his confusion as to why the people of the West Bank could take part in attacks against Danish representatives and burn the Danish flag when Denmark has always been so good to the Palestinians. Denmark donates 100 -200 million kroner a year to the Palestinian territories and Fogh could not understand why the Palestinians reacted the way they did.
(translated from Danish by me, and I also added the links) "If Israel falls, then Europe will fall also" so says Major General Kjeld Hillingsø. It is a broad but sharp analysis. The fight between the Israeli's and the Palestinians is a war between European and Arabic social perceptions, between the European and Arabic populations.
The European establishment leans towards the Arabic side. Europe's media and intelligentsia have much the same tendency. The situation of the Jews is not much different from how it was under the negotiations at Evian in 1938.
In July 1938, 32 nations met in the French town of Evian. Nation after nation expressed sympathy for the Jews of Germany, but only one nation, The Dominican Republic, opened its doors to Jewish refugee's. No other nation acted. Hitler commented that it was clear for all to see, no one wanted the Jews, and he carried on with his plans for extermination.
Only later did it dawn on people what was going on and then we had the world war. The war was essentially a war against the Jews, but we not supposed to say that. Is time Europe's politicians woke up, and the media also (and the intelligentsia?) The Munich agreement and what came after it, awaits us.
During a press breifing a few months ago, Prime Minister [of Denmark] Anders Fogh Rasmussen expressed his confusion as to why the people of the West Bank could take part in attacks against Danish representatives and burn the Danish flag when Denmark has always been so good to the Palestinians. Denmark donates 100 -200 million kroner a year to the Palestinian territories and Fogh could not understand why the Palestinians reacted the way they did.
Link.
As I understand it, the point being made is that Europe's socialist/antiwar/pro Muslim perspective is no different from the studied indifference of the Evian conference which gave Hitler the excuses he needed to implement his plans for the extermination of the Jewish people.
edited to add:
I see quarkhead has posted whilst I was ranting...
QUOTE
Well this is an interesting idea. So now Gandhi's pacifism is the reason for India's dividing? I'd like to see some sort of connective thinking, besides writing the two down in the same paragraph.
Do you object to the conclusion? Ghandi's legacy was what it was. His leadership worked fine against the British who essentially supported him for the most part and empathised with his moral arguments (up until the Germans attacked Britian at any rate) but the same policy of pacifism rendered India in two and caused the formation of Muslim Pakistan and ultimately to Ghandi's eventual assassination. Millions ere displaced and the two countries have essentially been at war ever since. That is essentially what Ghandi and his policies accomplished. India was independent, but only because the majority of the British agreed with Ghandi. Pakistan was lost because the majority of Indian Muslims did not agree with Ghandi.
What else do you want me to say?
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jul 22 2006, 07:17 AM)
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
This is a pretty funny idea. The person posing these questions is either confused, or playing some boring Ann Coulter sort of game.
First of all, to equate peace movements with pacifism makes no sense. Pacifism is a personal thing, whereas peace movements are usually about opposition to specific wars. Pacifists will likely be a part of any peace movement, but peace movements are not about pacifism. Whether or not one can change the world through one's actions, pacifism is a personal choice.
One can make all the tenuous connections one likes, but the causes of war are not people who seek peace. To claim so is simply ridiculous. Pacifism has a well thought out history; perhaps those who equate it with "doing nothing" should study this history.
1. No. People who advocate war cause war to be more likely. Simple.
2. Admired. History and the teachings of people from Christ to Gandhi show us this quite clearly. I don't recall any "blessed are the warmakers" bits from the Sermon on the Mount. I must have missed that part.
3. Cease fires are always a start. They are never a final solution. However, it is quite doubtful cooler heads will ever prevail without them.
At least you touched on the common thread that I've observed among the "peace advocates". First, the arrogance. Anyone who questions their mentality is either "confused", crazy, or "boring" (that's a new one).
Second, the desire to be "admired". Yes, not only admired but put on the same levels as "Christ", "Ghandi" or other historical figures. **Edited to remove unconstructive and belittling commentary**
One sees this attitude every time one encounters a "peacenik".
Yet, I ask a serious question. What wars have the peace movement prevented? Their delusionary view of mankind and human nature leads us to war after war.
People have ALWAYS advocated war. Yes, they cause wars, quarkhead. But, given that "reality" what is one to do about it? Protest? Carry signs? Lay down as human shields? Die?
Our world is a jungle filled with animals. Some of those animals have highly evolved brains (compared to the rest of the animals on the planet) but the rule of the jungle is no less true among humans than it is among Lions and antelope. Certainly, humans possess the capability to think and reason and understand our nature and attempt to control it. But, the lesser among us; whether they are motivated by national pride combined with quack eugenics and racial theories (like the Nazis), the desire to expand their region combined with a racial superiority / cult of glorified death (imperial Japan), communism, or the current cult of radical Islam, there has ALWAYS been, and will always BE these people.
Preventing these people from acting on their impulses is the rational response from free societies. And that involves being prepared to fight a war, to the death, with extreme violence. This self defensive posture is what prevents wars, it doesn't encourage them.
The USSR was prevented from their goal of international communism because the US (and to a much less extent, the west) confronted them and threatened them with massive military response (nuclear war). It stopped them. In contrast, post WWI America disarmed to a large extent since the "peace movement" convinced policy makers that if free people disarmed, war would suddenly never happen. They forgot the rule of the jungle, however, in their quest to be more "admired" people on par with Jesus and thus encouraged the Japanese to attack our country on 7/7/41 thus throwing our nation into a world war. The same pretty much happened in Europe. The peace movement trumpeted Neville Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler in Munich as "peace in our time". The "peace movement" rejoiced. The predatory Hitler then stormed into Poland after obtaining Austria and Czechoslovakia without hardly firing a shot.
This is what the peace advocates mess up each and every time leading us to our next war. Their targets are NEVER the predatory nations who don't recognize the values of "peace" but instead are committed to violence to achieve their ends. You didn't see peace advocates protesting in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Moscow during the cold war, or Tehran right now. No way. They would be killed and/or imprisoned. Instead, they target the FREE nations which they attack without mercy as the "cause" of wars and continue to demand that the FREE nations be the ones that lay down their arms first.
It's madness, really. When faced with the threat of Naziism, Japanese expansionism, Communism, and now radical Islamist Jihad, the "peace" advocates declare who the real enemy is. And it is us. The biggest defender of freedom this world has ever seen.
Predatory people, terrorist groups, and nations don't understand Jesus, Ghandi, or other dead pacifists. They understand power, the imposition of will, and the use of terror to achieve those aims.
And any people who value freedom must be prepared to meet those tyrants and deal with them..... using extreme prejudice.
QUOTE
Yet, I ask a serious question. What wars have the peace movement prevented? Their delusionary view of mankind and human nature leads us to war after war.
People have ALWAYS advocated war. Yes, they cause wars, quarkhead. But, given that "reality" what is one to do about it? Protest? Carry signs? Lay down as human shields? Die?
People have ALWAYS advocated war. Yes, they cause wars, quarkhead. But, given that "reality" what is one to do about it? Protest? Carry signs? Lay down as human shields? Die?
Which is it? My delusionary mind leads us to wars, or the people who advocate war? In the first paragraph you say I am responsible for causing war, in the second you seem to be saying that war advocates cause wars, and pacifists have the "wrong" reaction according to your infinite wisdom.
QUOTE
But, given that "reality" what is one to do about it? Protest? Carry signs? Lay down as human shields? Die?
Yes, yes, and yes. Which part of pacifism do you not understand? I said it before: pacifism is a personal choice, usually associated with a religious or spiritual belief. My own pacifism has its roots in my upbringing as a Mennonite. The Mennonites took Jesus's teachings very seriously.
There may be wars, and there may be those who beat upon the drums of war. But the personal choice faced by the pacifist is usually this: because the reasons for pacifism are on a personal level, to engage in violence is to become that which we strive always against, that which has been taught to us as being the reason there is so much suffering in this world. It isn't about geopolitics. It is about what a person does, what he or she is responsible for.
I don't have my head in the sand; I understand that there have been cases where violence has served to interrupt a horror or a genocide. But to declare that war is the product of peace advocates is so backwards it makes my head spin a bit. I firmly believe that, while violence may stop a war, it is only peace advocates who can stop War. A subtle distinction to be sure, but one I do make. We can keep going around and around in the cycle of violence, or we can choose to step off. We can talk about the 2 million killed in Indochina after we left, or the 2 million we killed while we were there. We can talk about the 3,000 Americans killed by violence in New york City, we can talk about the 30,000 to 100,000 or more Iraqis that have been killed since our war began. What I do know about these numbers is that the number of these people killed by peace advocates in these conflicts is zero. And that's what it boils down to.
Pacifism is a profound personal choice. It may be easy to paint it as ridiculous in the face of sensical arguments like MrsPigpen has done in her response to my statements. But that thinking shows an incomplete understanding of pacifism - again, pacifism is a personal, profound moral choice. It is not a political position, it is not on the spectrum of political ideology. That's what makes it vulnerable to these sorts of political attacks - because it is not a part of the political game at all.
So-- Sir Neville Chamberlain's negotiation in good faith with Hitler was the cause of the second World War. Thank you...I always labored under the delusion of thinking it was Hitler invading Poland that precipitated it.
Yeah, Chamberlain with his desire for peace practically held a gun to der Fuehrer's head until he sent the Blitzkrieg.
By that same reasoning, it was Donald Rumsfeld's fault that under the regime of Saddam Hussein "rape rooms" were brought into existence as well as the gassing of the Kurds, because the U.S. was conducting business as usual with Iraq because Saddam Hussein was avowedly anti-Communist and stood against the theocracy of Iran. You know the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (The hidden portion of this sentence could well be "this time...")
Gandhi's work toward the independence of India and ceasing the subjugation of India's people to the colonial British government can be dismissed because ultimately the Pakistanis decided to strike out on their own to come out from under Britain's thumb as well. Yeah, right--that was Gandhi's fault. The fact that he didn't encourage the taking up of arms against the oppressors made him unlike say, Spartacus who led the failed slave rebellion in ancient Rome. But because Gandhi used peaceful, passive resistance as his modus operandi, he is somehow more contemptible than an escaped slave who put Roman slaveowners to the sword to achieve his goals. But did the actions of Spartacus bring an end to Romans keeping slaves?
Why don't we all bloody well arm our children to the teeth and forget about teaching them to get along in the schoolyard? Pacificism is weak: it causes the bullies to just walk all over the non-bullies. It's a jungle out there, where humanity is not rewarded. The carnivorous dinosaurs ate the herbivores. So it was, so it shall ever be. An eye for an eye tells people where you stand, and there is no room for learning that does not involve inflicting pain on someone else or experiencing the pain ourselves.
So the so-called Protestants and Catholics continue to target each other in Northern Ireland. The Shia and the Sunnis battle for control in the name of their allegedly benevolent god. "Kill them all, let God sort 'em out" becomes the rule of thumb even when collateral damage claims innocents who aren't old enough to have done anything wrong.
But those peaceniks are so arrogant. They--they quote Jesus(!) and all the goody-two shoes prophets and philosophers and therefore think they're better than everyone else. Why, they could just as well quote ?, and ??, and ??? You tell me; just who are pacifists going to quote and emulate if it isn't the prophets and philosophers who advocated peace? And who do they leave for the pro-war factions to quote? Just about anyone else in the world, because this world knows war much better than it does peace. Let's see, Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Idi Amin...and of course, Hitler.
But who actually are the arrogant ones in this debate? I would assert that those who are so willing to call other individuals, factions or countries wrong and not only that, but willingly commit violence against them to the point of depriving them of their lives because they feel that their course is the only logical one. I would like to remind those people that the United States invaded Iraq because they were alleged to be a threat to us because of those legendary weapons of mass destruction, and that they allegedly colluded with terrorists, even though it looked to the world that far more terrorists showed up in Iraq the moment our forces declared an end to the invasion. And the idea of liberating the Iraqi people showed up as little more than an afterthought to these leaders who worked so very hard to mention 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath, as though they were related to each other. Who was wrong?
The consequence is that more U.S. and British soldiers have been losing their lives every week as we try to "win their hearts and minds" or flush out the insurgents, whichever comes first. No, I'm not defending those who attack the occupying armies, even though I understand them.
You see, I am not a true pacifist. Should a force attack our country within our borders, I will take up arms as I am able to defend my family and my fellow citizens. We don't all want to lie down and die or be crucified for the sake of a principle; that action lies within the practice of saints and saviors.
But, like many people who are now demonstrating against the protracted occupation of Iraq, I don't see a whole lot of sense to going across the world to attack those who did not attack and indeed, could not attack us.
Because, ultimately, this current "doctrine" of pre-emption could, if carried to its logical extremes, mean we could stomp the hell out of even our current, non-belligerent allies if, by some stretch of the imagination, we can invision them finding some reason and some way of striking at the United States. Brazil, watch out!
It seems to me that anything carried to extremes does not make sense.
So what do we want to teach our children as they're coming up through the grades? Just haul off and slap back anyone who hits them regardless of the consequences to them? If someone steals their jacket or athletic shoes that they are entitled to strike back with enough overwhelming force that the thief will never be able to offend them or anyone else again?
There is a path between the two extremes--immediate and violent retaliation -vs- extreme and sustained passivity--which is desirable. The whole reason that the human race (or the god you worship, if you prefer) developed the concept of law was that someone recognized that eye-for-an-eye retaliation left the whole tribe in a bad way and less able to function together.
The axiom that George W. Bush famously tried to repeat was, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Some of us in the peace movement aspire to a higher consciousness by finding forgiveness for the worst of our fellow human beings, but we're not all that way. Many of us are looking for measured, well-reasoned responses to the aggression of those we call enemies, first through law if possible. Barring finding alternatives through law or diplomacy, war should be undertaken only when other measures fail, and should never be started because of lies or greed from our own side.
If violence is the only viable way to end conflict, then we'll suffer from it until we're all dead.
Yeah, Chamberlain with his desire for peace practically held a gun to der Fuehrer's head until he sent the Blitzkrieg.
By that same reasoning, it was Donald Rumsfeld's fault that under the regime of Saddam Hussein "rape rooms" were brought into existence as well as the gassing of the Kurds, because the U.S. was conducting business as usual with Iraq because Saddam Hussein was avowedly anti-Communist and stood against the theocracy of Iran. You know the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (The hidden portion of this sentence could well be "this time...")
Gandhi's work toward the independence of India and ceasing the subjugation of India's people to the colonial British government can be dismissed because ultimately the Pakistanis decided to strike out on their own to come out from under Britain's thumb as well. Yeah, right--that was Gandhi's fault. The fact that he didn't encourage the taking up of arms against the oppressors made him unlike say, Spartacus who led the failed slave rebellion in ancient Rome. But because Gandhi used peaceful, passive resistance as his modus operandi, he is somehow more contemptible than an escaped slave who put Roman slaveowners to the sword to achieve his goals. But did the actions of Spartacus bring an end to Romans keeping slaves?
Why don't we all bloody well arm our children to the teeth and forget about teaching them to get along in the schoolyard? Pacificism is weak: it causes the bullies to just walk all over the non-bullies. It's a jungle out there, where humanity is not rewarded. The carnivorous dinosaurs ate the herbivores. So it was, so it shall ever be. An eye for an eye tells people where you stand, and there is no room for learning that does not involve inflicting pain on someone else or experiencing the pain ourselves.
So the so-called Protestants and Catholics continue to target each other in Northern Ireland. The Shia and the Sunnis battle for control in the name of their allegedly benevolent god. "Kill them all, let God sort 'em out" becomes the rule of thumb even when collateral damage claims innocents who aren't old enough to have done anything wrong.
But those peaceniks are so arrogant. They--they quote Jesus(!) and all the goody-two shoes prophets and philosophers and therefore think they're better than everyone else. Why, they could just as well quote ?, and ??, and ??? You tell me; just who are pacifists going to quote and emulate if it isn't the prophets and philosophers who advocated peace? And who do they leave for the pro-war factions to quote? Just about anyone else in the world, because this world knows war much better than it does peace. Let's see, Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Idi Amin...and of course, Hitler.
But who actually are the arrogant ones in this debate? I would assert that those who are so willing to call other individuals, factions or countries wrong and not only that, but willingly commit violence against them to the point of depriving them of their lives because they feel that their course is the only logical one. I would like to remind those people that the United States invaded Iraq because they were alleged to be a threat to us because of those legendary weapons of mass destruction, and that they allegedly colluded with terrorists, even though it looked to the world that far more terrorists showed up in Iraq the moment our forces declared an end to the invasion. And the idea of liberating the Iraqi people showed up as little more than an afterthought to these leaders who worked so very hard to mention 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath, as though they were related to each other. Who was wrong?
The consequence is that more U.S. and British soldiers have been losing their lives every week as we try to "win their hearts and minds" or flush out the insurgents, whichever comes first. No, I'm not defending those who attack the occupying armies, even though I understand them.
You see, I am not a true pacifist. Should a force attack our country within our borders, I will take up arms as I am able to defend my family and my fellow citizens. We don't all want to lie down and die or be crucified for the sake of a principle; that action lies within the practice of saints and saviors.
But, like many people who are now demonstrating against the protracted occupation of Iraq, I don't see a whole lot of sense to going across the world to attack those who did not attack and indeed, could not attack us.
Because, ultimately, this current "doctrine" of pre-emption could, if carried to its logical extremes, mean we could stomp the hell out of even our current, non-belligerent allies if, by some stretch of the imagination, we can invision them finding some reason and some way of striking at the United States. Brazil, watch out!
It seems to me that anything carried to extremes does not make sense.
So what do we want to teach our children as they're coming up through the grades? Just haul off and slap back anyone who hits them regardless of the consequences to them? If someone steals their jacket or athletic shoes that they are entitled to strike back with enough overwhelming force that the thief will never be able to offend them or anyone else again?
There is a path between the two extremes--immediate and violent retaliation -vs- extreme and sustained passivity--which is desirable. The whole reason that the human race (or the god you worship, if you prefer) developed the concept of law was that someone recognized that eye-for-an-eye retaliation left the whole tribe in a bad way and less able to function together.
The axiom that George W. Bush famously tried to repeat was, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Some of us in the peace movement aspire to a higher consciousness by finding forgiveness for the worst of our fellow human beings, but we're not all that way. Many of us are looking for measured, well-reasoned responses to the aggression of those we call enemies, first through law if possible. Barring finding alternatives through law or diplomacy, war should be undertaken only when other measures fail, and should never be started because of lies or greed from our own side.
If violence is the only viable way to end conflict, then we'll suffer from it until we're all dead.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
Because of the way powerful governments operate, peace movements usually cannot change the situation one way or another. And with military power concentrated in the hands of a small number of countries, terrorism usually becomes the tactic of choice for people who cannot build fighter jets and tanks.
In the late 20th century, the United States and the Soviet Union were responsible for wars of aggression in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan. I'm very surprised that the Vietcong didn't send terrorist groups to New York City. I'm also very surprised that the Mujahideens didn't send terrorist groups to Moscow. If there had been some terrorist attacks against the US and the USSR during those 2 wars of aggression, those wars might have ended sooner.
Because of the way powerful governments operate, peace movements usually cannot change the situation one way or another. And with military power concentrated in the hands of a small number of countries, terrorism usually becomes the tactic of choice for people who cannot build fighter jets and tanks.
In the late 20th century, the United States and the Soviet Union were responsible for wars of aggression in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan. I'm very surprised that the Vietcong didn't send terrorist groups to New York City. I'm also very surprised that the Mujahideens didn't send terrorist groups to Moscow. If there had been some terrorist attacks against the US and the USSR during those 2 wars of aggression, those wars might have ended sooner.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
Well, there is still war in the world so peace advocates (aren't we really all peace advocates?) haven't prevailed. There are places where war has been kept away from for a good period of time, continental North America, Western Europe since WWII are examples.
I think peace advocates serve a noble and valuable purpose. For every instance of pacifism resulting in appeasement and further aggression, there are other examples where has had a positive influence.
Anti-war advocates kept the United States out of the worst of World War I and delayed significantly the entrance of the US into World War II. At the end of the day, despite the delay the United States exited both wars in a better foreign policy position than they entered.
A strong concern about going to war and a politically influential peace movement at the dawn of the Gulf War led to a healthy debate before entering the war and in the end a cautious strategy that helped us exit that war in a better position entered it. When we have been prompted by ideology and historical circumstance to be more hawkish we have made some larger mistakes like entering Vietnam and Iraq without a clearly conceived strategy.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
History does not teach that pacifists are harmful to the societies they gain an influence in. I think Quakers have played a proud role in our society yet we have managed to defend ourselves against threats.
History is not conclusive in this area. But history is not littered with societies that died because of foolhardy pacifism.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
I think open hostilities and an immediate cease fire are continuations of an untenable situation in the middle east. A cease fire, however, would leave left innocent people dead during the untenable situation. Cease fires usually are not the result of pacifism but of military stalemates. Israel wants to go in against Hezbollah and IMO they have that right. But they probably would have been better served in taking a much more cautious approach in terms of killing Lebanese innocents. Adopting the tactics of monsters makes it hard for one to claim a distinction from monsters.
I also do not think Israel can do anything in the present conflict but solve its security threat on its northern border for at best a few years. But the United States is not in a moral position to tell Israel to back off. it is defending itself.
Well, there is still war in the world so peace advocates (aren't we really all peace advocates?) haven't prevailed. There are places where war has been kept away from for a good period of time, continental North America, Western Europe since WWII are examples.
I think peace advocates serve a noble and valuable purpose. For every instance of pacifism resulting in appeasement and further aggression, there are other examples where has had a positive influence.
Anti-war advocates kept the United States out of the worst of World War I and delayed significantly the entrance of the US into World War II. At the end of the day, despite the delay the United States exited both wars in a better foreign policy position than they entered.
A strong concern about going to war and a politically influential peace movement at the dawn of the Gulf War led to a healthy debate before entering the war and in the end a cautious strategy that helped us exit that war in a better position entered it. When we have been prompted by ideology and historical circumstance to be more hawkish we have made some larger mistakes like entering Vietnam and Iraq without a clearly conceived strategy.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
History does not teach that pacifists are harmful to the societies they gain an influence in. I think Quakers have played a proud role in our society yet we have managed to defend ourselves against threats.
History is not conclusive in this area. But history is not littered with societies that died because of foolhardy pacifism.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
I think open hostilities and an immediate cease fire are continuations of an untenable situation in the middle east. A cease fire, however, would leave left innocent people dead during the untenable situation. Cease fires usually are not the result of pacifism but of military stalemates. Israel wants to go in against Hezbollah and IMO they have that right. But they probably would have been better served in taking a much more cautious approach in terms of killing Lebanese innocents. Adopting the tactics of monsters makes it hard for one to claim a distinction from monsters.
I also do not think Israel can do anything in the present conflict but solve its security threat on its northern border for at best a few years. But the United States is not in a moral position to tell Israel to back off. it is defending itself.
QUOTE
Yet, I ask a serious question. What wars have the peace movement prevented? Their delusionary view of mankind and human nature leads us to war after war.
LH,
After Vietnam, Congress was very reluctant to let the Executive head off to war after war. The Congress wanted to know what was the purpose, to what extent would we be involved, and what was the exit strategy. What wars were prevented? I give. They never happened, so what do we call them?
Before Iraq, anti-war demonstraters wanted to know what was the purpose, to what extent would we be involved, and what was the exit strategy. We were told to get a grip. We were told that the Executive knew what it was doing. By your logic, the anti-war demonstraters caused the Iraq war, not an Executive hot on the trail of Saddam because he, you know, was a bad guy, had weapons, helped to make 9/11 happen and a slew of other stories.
Yep, this logic doesn't hold up. Now it can be argued that in the past, non-involvement with world politics (isolationism) led to WW II coming to our door. Isolationism isn't pacifism, nor is it part of any peace movement of which I'm aware. Yet on the other hand, we were involved in WW II before Pearl Harbor. That's why the U-boats were sinking our merchant marine ships.
I suppose one can argue that a policy of containment allowed Hitler to get too big. Okay, and that argument worked for the first Gulf War. I don't remember much war protest for that conflict. I do remember that people were fascinated with the Nintendo character of smart bombs. The point is that Saddam had been popped out of being a threat to Kuwait and Saudi. The containment was working, not perfectly for sure, but it was a better situation after the Gulf War than before.
In a nutshell, whatever impact any peace movement has on the powers that be happens after the fact, not before. Nobody listens beforehand. It was fascinating to witness this first-hand, and then observe the baloney coming out afterward. I guess if it makes some people feel better, it was all my fault. That's because I have such a great influence over President Bush and his advisors.
Okay, now what?
Do the powers want my solution to the mess that they created?
Whell, I'm not talking
Although I do agree with what AMlord says:
But to say peace activists cause or make war more likely is like saying a woman who walks alone to her car at night in a dark parking lot is responsible for being raped.
Neville Chamberlain's good faith negotiations with Hitler did not cause World War II, but his actions in negotiating with Hitler were extremely irresponsible.
The unfortunate truth in this matter is that aggression and a show of power is the only thing to work against a bully/fanaticism.
But peace activists don't "cause" wars.
QUOTE
Peace movements advocate solutions and policies that would work if everyone subscribed to them. If everyone agreed not to have weapons, then disarmament would work. If everyone agreed that attacking your neighbors was wrong, then nobody would do it.
Unfortunately, not everyone will abide by pacifistic notions and thus the policies make conflict more likely. Why? Because bullies look for the weak to prey upon. They fear strength. This is true of nations and of individuals.
Unfortunately, not everyone will abide by pacifistic notions and thus the policies make conflict more likely. Why? Because bullies look for the weak to prey upon. They fear strength. This is true of nations and of individuals.
But to say peace activists cause or make war more likely is like saying a woman who walks alone to her car at night in a dark parking lot is responsible for being raped.
Neville Chamberlain's good faith negotiations with Hitler did not cause World War II, but his actions in negotiating with Hitler were extremely irresponsible.
The unfortunate truth in this matter is that aggression and a show of power is the only thing to work against a bully/fanaticism.
But peace activists don't "cause" wars.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jul 22 2006, 08:35 AM)
This is what the peace advocates mess up each and every time leading us to our next war. Their targets are NEVER the predatory nations who don't recognize the values of "peace" but instead are committed to violence to achieve their ends. You didn't see peace advocates protesting in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Moscow during the cold war, or Tehran right now. No way. They would be killed and/or imprisoned. Instead, they target the FREE nations which they attack without mercy as the "cause" of wars and continue to demand that the FREE nations be the ones that lay down their arms first.
Perhaps that is because Tehran, Moscow during the cold war, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany are not or were not democracies where individual liberties are respected and peaceful dissent is possible? Logic would dictate that people who want peace are going to petition their own governments rather than hop on a jet to Tehran and do it there. "Think globally, act locally" and all that...
QUOTE
It's madness, really. When faced with the threat of Naziism, Japanese expansionism, Communism, and now radical Islamist Jihad, the "peace" advocates declare who the real enemy is. And it is us. The biggest defender of freedom this world has ever seen.
Predatory people, terrorist groups, and nations don't understand Jesus, Ghandi, or other dead pacifists. They understand power, the imposition of will, and the use of terror to achieve those aims.
And any people who value freedom must be prepared to meet those tyrants and deal with them..... using extreme prejudice.
Predatory people, terrorist groups, and nations don't understand Jesus, Ghandi, or other dead pacifists. They understand power, the imposition of will, and the use of terror to achieve those aims.
And any people who value freedom must be prepared to meet those tyrants and deal with them..... using extreme prejudice.
Quarkhead's posts have served as a excellent rebuttal, but I'll add my own modest contribution.
The biggest defender of freedom this world has ever seen? True enough...on its face. But one doesn't have to delve too deeply in history to find ample examples of where the United States has met with tyrants and dealt with them---as allies and provided them with weapons, money and support. We're all familiar with Donald Rumsfeld's champagne toast with Saddam Hussein and Dick Cheney and Haliburton rebuilding Iraq's oil infratstructure after Desert Storm.
The U.S. supports the idea of democracy when the democracy in question is friendly to our interests. The Bush Administration and the democratically-elected leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez have been at odds since his election. Meanwhile, the U.S. embraces with enthusiasm, General Pervez Musharraf who came to power during a military coup in Pakistan. How does Musharraf handle democracy in Pakistan?
Elections were scheduled for this October, after which a newly elected national parliament and provincial assemblies would elect a president. Not any more. Voting will still take place but the presidency will not be up for grabs. Instead, tomorrow there will be a referendum on whether Musharraf should remain president for another five years. To ensure victory, political parties have been banned from holding rallies, he has refused the right of former, elected and currently exiled premiers to return and oppose the referendum, and beaten up journalists and opponents. Musharraf's will be the only name on the ballot.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0429-05.htm
Among the dictators, tyrants and outright nuts that have enjoyed U.S. support at one time or another included such luminaries as Pol Pot in Cambodia, Idi Amin in Uganda, P.W. Botha in South Africa, Augusto Pinohcet in Chile, Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, General Manuel Noriega in Panama, Ian Smith in Rhodesia, and Adolf Hitler in Germany. link
It's easy to fall in love with the idealistic notion that America is crusading around the world liberating people from repressive governments with a touch of it's magic wand, but the reality is the U.S. has gotten into bed with some pretty unsavory types when it served our own interests.
QUOTE
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
The first question can't be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." Is the natural state of mankind one of civilization or barbarism? Do are actually long for war more than peace?
Peace movements have far move appeal to most people than "War" movements. Peace comes at a price, but war is far more expensive in what it costs in money, lives destroyed and the human cost. We are are not a martial race of blood-lusting warriors, then conversely we must see there is some value from not investing all our time coming up with new and better ways to kill each other.
War has certainly turned more generals into lovers of peace than it has turned pacifists into war-mongers. Is there evidence of where a pacifist or peace advocate actually started a war? Typically, it's usually politicians that start the wars they send private citizens off to fight.
2. History teaches that while peace is preferable to war, wars are on some occasions, a neccesary evil to preserve domestic security, the life of a nation's citizens and the protection of the nation's interests. The example of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain is often offered up as to the fallacy of pacifism. However, Chamberlain was not a pacifist. He was a politician who tried to cut a deal with the devil. So did Stalin and nobody's ever accused "Uncle Joe" of being anybody's peacenik.
True pacifists are better exemplified by Gandhi and King than Chamberlain. The British philosopher, Bertrand Russell expoused a principle of "relative pacifism" during WWII realizing defeating the evil of Hitler and Nazi Germany neccesitated a real-worldview of the price to be paid by not standing up to Germany.
History teaches that while war persists as a popular activity of humankind, those that actively advocate war are shunned as a minority. We award a Nobel PEACE Prize, not a Nobel WAR Prize.
The supremacy of the condition of peace over the state of war is not seriously disputed. Nor is it disputed than in any real world perspective, merely desiring peace will not achieve it. Two of the best perspectives of the duality of war and peace are as follows:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. (John Stuart Mill)
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. (General Omar Bradley)
Humans have longed for peace and prepared for war since the first caveman hit the second caveman over the head with a rock. I doubt the definitive answer will be reached in this thread.
QUOTE(quarkhead)
Pacifism is a profound personal choice. It may be easy to paint it as ridiculous in the face of sensical arguments like MrsPigpen has done in her response to my statements. But that thinking shows an incomplete understanding of pacifism - again, pacifism is a personal, profound moral choice. It is not a political position, it is not on the spectrum of political ideology. That's what makes it vulnerable to these sorts of political attacks - because it is not a part of the political game at all.
Reading this brings an immediate question to my mind... What right does an able bodied pacifist then have to live in any society that must defend them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
So-- Sir Neville Chamberlain's negotiation in good faith with Hitler was the cause of the second World War. Thank you...I always labored under the delusion of thinking it was Hitler invading Poland that precipitated it.
Indirectly, yes. Would Hitler have invaded Poland, or carried out any of his other heinous capers, if the rest of Europe had held him to account the instant he stepped across the line? You can argue that the war is Hitler's fault, but in doing so you've accepted allowing a complete maniac to determine the fate of millions. People like Hitler, or Ahmedinajad, should never be allowed to dictate fate for other people. Never, and by allowing these people to get away with murder, we take on the burden of responsibility for their crimes.
It would be the same as if I left a child alone in the room with a known sex offender. Sure the criminal is responsible for the ensuing rape and murder of the child, but as an adult human being of reasonable mental faculties, my responsibility towards the child is set in absolute moral concrete.
So it was with Chamberlain, who by the way accepted his responsibility and (figuratively speaking) fell on his sword as a result of what he'd done.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
Gandhi's work toward the independence of India and ceasing the subjugation of India's people to the colonial British government can be dismissed because ultimately the Pakistanis decided to strike out on their own to come out from under Britain's thumb as well. Yeah, right--that was Gandhi's fault. The fact that he didn't encourage the taking up of arms against the oppressors made him unlike say, Spartacus who led the failed slave rebellion in ancient Rome. But because Gandhi used peaceful, passive resistance as his modus operandi, he is somehow more contemptible than an escaped slave who put Roman slaveowners to the sword to achieve his goals. But did the actions of Spartacus bring an end to Romans keeping slaves?
My point about Ghandi was not that he was directly responsible for the formation of Pakistan, but rather that his pacifism was useless against it because the Muslims were not prepared to accept his position in the same way the British had been. I think this is a valid point to make. Pacifism doesn't work when the other person ignores it. It just makes it easier for aggression to succeed.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
Why don't we all bloody well arm our children to the teeth and forget about teaching them to get along in the schoolyard?
Not all children are raised in the same school yards. Its easy to put forward rules for how to raise one's children but unfair to impose those rules upon every one else without they agree to them.QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
If violence is the only viable way to end conflict, then we'll suffer from it until we're all dead.
It was violence and suffering that ended the nazi's, not pacifism. If we'd followed Ghandi's lessons then we'd all be speaking German now ...well I wouldn't, cause I wouldn't have been born at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(Eeyore)
Well, there is still war in the world so peace advocates (aren't we really all peace advocates?) haven't prevailed. There are places where war has been kept away from for a good period of time, continental North America, Western Europe since WWII are examples.
And weren't both those examples brought about by resounding military victories? QUOTE
Anti-war advocates kept the United States out of the worst of World War I and delayed significantly the entrance of the US into World War II. At the end of the day, despite the delay the United States exited both wars in a better foreign policy position than they entered.
And yet, were not both wars prolonged by the absence of US intervention?Isn't that the contention of this thread? That inaction in the face of aggression encourages further aggression? Isn't that the lesson of all human history? ...that refusing to fight emboldens the bully?
QUOTE
A strong concern about going to war and a politically influential peace movement at the dawn of the Gulf War led to a healthy debate before entering the war and in the end a cautious strategy that helped us exit that war in a better position entered it. When we have been prompted by ideology and historical circumstance to be more hawkish we have made some larger mistakes like entering Vietnam and Iraq without a clearly conceived strategy.
A damned fine point if I may say so. You've put such well defined thoughts forward before Eeyore and again I applaud you for your accuracy. Aggression is the main cause of war, without a doubt and no one but a fool rushes into a war without due consideration. A healthy debate before entering the war is just as essential to victory as the pulling together of the population behind the decision once the decision to go to war has been taken. War ought never to be undertaken lightly, nor be considered anything but the final option available.
QUOTE
History does not teach that pacifists are harmful to the societies they gain an influence in. I think Quakers have played a proud role in our society yet we have managed to defend ourselves against threats.
History is not conclusive in this area. But history is not littered with societies that died because of foolhardy pacifism.
Danish pacifism in 1938 did not stop the wehrmacht from marching across our borders... nor did it send them packing again in 1945. That was only due to Allied military intervention.History is not conclusive in this area. But history is not littered with societies that died because of foolhardy pacifism.
If the Qakers have, as you say (I am ignorant of Quaker history), managed to defend themselves, then I submit it is, like as not, only because they have never been attacked.
QUOTE
I also do not think Israel can do anything in the present conflict but solve its security threat on its northern border for at best a few years. But the United States is not in a moral position to tell Israel to back off. it is defending itself.
I agree. No matter how well Israel defeats Hezbollah in Lebanon, for as long as the Muslim world continues to embrace violence as a political tool then Israel will face eventual defeat. I believe what we are seeing today is not meant by Iran, as anything but ground work for the eventual deployment of Iranian nuclear weaponry against Israel.
I believe Iran is engaged in creating a moral basis in the Muslim mind for its eventual nuclear attack against Israel.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
I'll agree with several others here in that 'it depends'. I would definitely agree with Eeyore in that we're all peace advocates. I also agree with LH that in today's world, there are those who must be dealt with in order to have peace. So, it comes down to a question of situations, and means. I think there are times when the 'evil-doers' in the world can indeed be dealt with in a peaceful fashion. I wish that were always the case...but I personally don't think it is. In such times, removal of the problem through war is often the only viable path to peace. However, I also do think that war often begets war. so I really do see and understand the peace movement. If war is indeed the only answer, then I do think emphasis on 'alternative' solutions can indeed make war more likely. However, I can also see that if there were only 'war' movements, then war would indeed always be the outcome.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
Hmmm.... yes? I think Quark did an excellent job of describing how many come by their personal pacificist beliefs. Hard not to admire that on a personal level. Has history shown that if this is carried up to a policy level that war becomes the result (or at least cannot be avoided)? I think that is also true. When this topic has come up in previous threads, the general conclusion (correct me if I'm wrong here, those of you who participated in these past threads) seems to have been that pacificism might make a very good personal philosophical belief, but that in today's world there are times when it would make poor policy. Essentially, pacifism doesn't have a good response to those who fail so blatantly to follow its ideals.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
Well, of course it's an easy answer...but that doesn't mean its the right one. I would say it doesn't mean its the wrong one, either. A cease-fire would essentially return things to the status quo...which I think there would be agreement wasn't really tenable long-term. So, it comes down, as usual, to a pragmatic question. What is most likely to result in a better long-term solution? If Israel continues their attacks, are they likely to really reduce the threat against their country? If so, will other effects outweigh this? Personally, I think pushing Hezbollah back 20 miles or so (which is what Israel says they're trying to do) should help protect their citizens. Whether or not the method of achieving that makes that worthwhile or not, I can't say. If their actions destabilize Lebanon, then they might end up in a worse situation than they started in. If they truly hurt Hezbollah, then they'd be better off.
Any cease fire outcomes should also be examined. If a cease fire were enacted, then what? Is Hezbollah likely to voluntarily reduce their presence? Doubtful. Could other pressure be brought to bear to achieve that aim? I have difficulty seeing what that might be. Syria and Iran, the two countries that could bring that about, aren't likely to cater to US or Israeli wishes. Pressure on Lebanon might be able to bring that about, but could its democracy survive that? Cease fires can only be successful if there is a viable end game in mind. I haven't heard much on what that might be.
I'll agree with several others here in that 'it depends'. I would definitely agree with Eeyore in that we're all peace advocates. I also agree with LH that in today's world, there are those who must be dealt with in order to have peace. So, it comes down to a question of situations, and means. I think there are times when the 'evil-doers' in the world can indeed be dealt with in a peaceful fashion. I wish that were always the case...but I personally don't think it is. In such times, removal of the problem through war is often the only viable path to peace. However, I also do think that war often begets war. so I really do see and understand the peace movement. If war is indeed the only answer, then I do think emphasis on 'alternative' solutions can indeed make war more likely. However, I can also see that if there were only 'war' movements, then war would indeed always be the outcome.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does history teach otherwise?
Hmmm.... yes? I think Quark did an excellent job of describing how many come by their personal pacificist beliefs. Hard not to admire that on a personal level. Has history shown that if this is carried up to a policy level that war becomes the result (or at least cannot be avoided)? I think that is also true. When this topic has come up in previous threads, the general conclusion (correct me if I'm wrong here, those of you who participated in these past threads) seems to have been that pacificism might make a very good personal philosophical belief, but that in today's world there are times when it would make poor policy. Essentially, pacifism doesn't have a good response to those who fail so blatantly to follow its ideals.
3. Is an immediate "cease fire" in the Middle East any answer or just a continuation of an untenable situation?
Well, of course it's an easy answer...but that doesn't mean its the right one. I would say it doesn't mean its the wrong one, either. A cease-fire would essentially return things to the status quo...which I think there would be agreement wasn't really tenable long-term. So, it comes down, as usual, to a pragmatic question. What is most likely to result in a better long-term solution? If Israel continues their attacks, are they likely to really reduce the threat against their country? If so, will other effects outweigh this? Personally, I think pushing Hezbollah back 20 miles or so (which is what Israel says they're trying to do) should help protect their citizens. Whether or not the method of achieving that makes that worthwhile or not, I can't say. If their actions destabilize Lebanon, then they might end up in a worse situation than they started in. If they truly hurt Hezbollah, then they'd be better off.
Any cease fire outcomes should also be examined. If a cease fire were enacted, then what? Is Hezbollah likely to voluntarily reduce their presence? Doubtful. Could other pressure be brought to bear to achieve that aim? I have difficulty seeing what that might be. Syria and Iran, the two countries that could bring that about, aren't likely to cater to US or Israeli wishes. Pressure on Lebanon might be able to bring that about, but could its democracy survive that? Cease fires can only be successful if there is a viable end game in mind. I haven't heard much on what that might be.
QUOTE(moif @ Jul 23 2006, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE(quarkhead)
Pacifism is a profound personal choice. It may be easy to paint it as ridiculous in the face of sensical arguments like MrsPigpen has done in her response to my statements. But that thinking shows an incomplete understanding of pacifism - again, pacifism is a personal, profound moral choice. It is not a political position, it is not on the spectrum of political ideology. That's what makes it vulnerable to these sorts of political attacks - because it is not a part of the political game at all.
Reading this brings an immediate question to my mind... What right does an able bodied pacifist then have to live in any society that must defend them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
So-- Sir Neville Chamberlain's negotiation in good faith with Hitler was the cause of the second World War. Thank you...I always labored under the delusion of thinking it was Hitler invading Poland that precipitated it.
Indirectly, yes. Would Hitler have invaded Poland, or carried out any of his other heinous capers, if the rest of Europe had held him to account the instant he stepped across the line? You can argue that the war is Hitler's fault, but in doing so you've accepted allowing a complete maniac to determine the fate of millions. People like Hitler, or Ahmedinajad, should never be allowed to dictate fate for other people. Never, and by allowing these people to get away with murder, we take on the burden of responsibility for their crimes.
It would be the same as if I left a child alone in the room with a known sex offender. Sure the criminal is responsible for the ensuing rape and murder of the child, but as an adult human being of reasonable mental faculties, my responsibility towards the child is set in absolute moral concrete.
So it was with Chamberlain, who by the way accepted his responsibility and (figuratively speaking) fell on his sword as a result of what he'd done.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
Gandhi's work toward the independence of India and ceasing the subjugation of India's people to the colonial British government can be dismissed because ultimately the Pakistanis decided to strike out on their own to come out from under Britain's thumb as well. Yeah, right--that was Gandhi's fault. The fact that he didn't encourage the taking up of arms against the oppressors made him unlike say, Spartacus who led the failed slave rebellion in ancient Rome. But because Gandhi used peaceful, passive resistance as his modus operandi, he is somehow more contemptible than an escaped slave who put Roman slaveowners to the sword to achieve his goals. But did the actions of Spartacus bring an end to Romans keeping slaves?
My point about Ghandi was not that he was directly responsible for the formation of Pakistan, but rather that his pacifism was useless against it because the Muslims were not prepared to accept his position in the same way the British had been. I think this is a valid point to make. Pacifism doesn't work when the other person ignores it. It just makes it easier for aggression to succeed.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
Why don't we all bloody well arm our children to the teeth and forget about teaching them to get along in the schoolyard?
Not all children are raised in the same school yards. Its easy to put forward rules for how to raise one's children but unfair to impose those rules upon every one else without they agree to them.QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
If violence is the only viable way to end conflict, then we'll suffer from it until we're all dead.
It was violence and suffering that ended the nazi's, not pacifism. If we'd followed Ghandi's lessons then we'd all be speaking German now ...well I wouldn't, cause I wouldn't have been born at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(Eeyore)
Well, there is still war in the world so peace advocates (aren't we really all peace advocates?) haven't prevailed. There are places where war has been kept away from for a good period of time, continental North America, Western Europe since WWII are examples.
And weren't both those examples brought about by resounding military victories? QUOTE
Anti-war advocates kept the United States out of the worst of World War I and delayed significantly the entrance of the US into World War II. At the end of the day, despite the delay the United States exited both wars in a better foreign policy position than they entered.
And yet, were not both wars prolonged by the absence of US intervention?Isn't that the contention of this thread? That inaction in the face of aggression encourages further aggression? Isn't that the lesson of all human history? ...that refusing to fight emboldens the bully?
QUOTE
A strong concern about going to war and a politically influential peace movement at the dawn of the Gulf War led to a healthy debate before entering the war and in the end a cautious strategy that helped us exit that war in a better position entered it. When we have been prompted by ideology and historical circumstance to be more hawkish we have made some larger mistakes like entering Vietnam and Iraq without a clearly conceived strategy.
A damned fine point if I may say so. You've put such well defined thoughts forward before Eeyore and again I applaud you for your accuracy. Aggression is the main cause of war, without a doubt and no one but a fool rushes into a war without due consideration. A healthy debate before entering the war is just as essential to victory as the pulling together of the population behind the decision once the decision to go to war has been taken. War ought never to be undertaken lightly, nor be considered anything but the final option available.
QUOTE
History does not teach that pacifists are harmful to the societies they gain an influence in. I think Quakers have played a proud role in our society yet we have managed to defend ourselves against threats.
History is not conclusive in this area. But history is not littered with societies that died because of foolhardy pacifism.
Danish pacifism in 1938 did not stop the wehrmacht from marching across our borders... nor did it send them packing again in 1945. That was only due to Allied military intervention.History is not conclusive in this area. But history is not littered with societies that died because of foolhardy pacifism.
If the Q[u]akers have, as you say (I am ignorant of Quaker history), managed to defend themselves, then I submit it is, like as not, only because they have never been attacked.
QUOTE
I also do not think Israel can do anything in the present conflict but solve its security threat on its northern border for at best a few years. But the United States is not in a moral position to tell Israel to back off. it is defending itself.
I agree. No matter how well Israel defeats Hezbollah in Lebanon, for as long as the Muslim world continues to embrace violence as a political tool then Israel will face eventual defeat. I believe what we are seeing today is not meant by Iran, as anything but ground work for the eventual deployment of Iranian nuclear weaponry against Israel.
I believe Iran is engaged in creating a moral basis in the Muslim mind for its eventual nuclear attack against Israel.
It appears to me as though you thought Neville Chamberlain was somehow psychic, that he knew Hitler's mind somehow and negotiated with him anyway. When diplomats are given the gift of seeing into the future, then they can accept full responsibility for when they screw up, and not before.
But I will agree with you that more than one leader was responsible for not stopping Hitler. And so it should be, with the majority working to keep in line or deal with those who would violate treaties and practice violence.
It seems to me that the punitive nature of the Treaty of Versailles toward Germany helped foster anger and resentment among the German people that allowed them to support a leader who made them proud to be Germans again, especially when he eventually told the nations of Europe what to do with that treaty.
Too bad Stalin was such a moral reprobate as well. Without his cooperation, Hitler would not have gotten as far as he did. Really, Stalin was a worse monster than Hitler, considering he killed far more of his fellow Russians than Hitler killed of the German people. But Hitler is remembered as the worse monster because he basically targeted one religious/ethnic group above all others, and Stalin became our "ally."
But remember the mark of a sociopath such as Hitler or Stalin is their lack of a conscience, and the knack for saying to other people after their violence: "Look what YOU made me do." It doesn't make their statement true, nor should we even consider the lie. No one forced them at gunpoint to do what they did.
Gandhi's goal was to peacefully free India from Britain's colonial rule. He accomplished this. No human being is omnipotent, that is, able to prevent bad things from happening down the road as a consequence of good things that they have done. To blame Gandhi's actions for the violence of the Pakistanis is disingenuous at best.
I don't know how things are done in the Danish school system, but the rule of non-violence between students is in every student handbook for every school in this country, unless it's a school for future guerilla fighters. Attendance at these schools is predicated upon the agreement of the parents and students to abide by the rules. So while there are bullies who get away with terrorizing students until they are caught, the behavior is more the aberration than the standard of behavior.
It is fair to impose rules on someone's children if it means that the conduct makes for a safer environment. You would not want kids carrying knives and guns to school. There must be an expectation of safety.
Nobody is going to knowingly place their child alone in the same room with a child molester or any other type of criminal, for that matter. I believe that is an invalid comparison to high-level negotiations between countries. The West did not know the type of man Hitler was. What they did see was a man with strong nationalistic politics who was avowedly anti-Communist.
If anything, the democracies of the world have got to recognize that dictators, anti-Communist or not, are still dictators, and that there will be hell to pay when they make deals with dictators, anti-Communist or not.
As far as the pacifism goes, I believe that there needs to be a balance in a population so that aggression does not become the order of the day in our societies. There needs to be an aspiration toward a humanity that can reason its way out of perpetual conflict, and it's got to come from somewhere.
I also believe that it takes a morally strong individual to be a pacifist, especially in light of the ridicule that is heaped upon these people. And to place blame on pacifists for the world's ills is ridiculous.
When it comes down to it, no person I think particularly wants to die really, most living things dont. I imagine most societies also would not like to die, and would react in such a way if a situation put it there to prevent death.
So in this light what should be fought is the reasons that war that comes about, so that in a way people can learn to destroy or be pre emptive on that rather then allowing an issue to get to the point in which bombs and organized warfare comes about.
Of course people are not at that stage or level of understanding, and for the most part such an idea gets laughed about and in the end even after the wars we never really come to understand how something like it came about truly, or what motivated some people to act in such a way.
So then we accept that in order to maintain order that usually in some form or another organized warfare comes to be a prime force in maintaining such order, this is old and a permanent fixture in our history as a specie.
Peace advocates in one sense could not be thought much better then the exact opposite, in that light that both never really want to solve this ugly aspect of humanity much rather just deal with it in one singular fashion. For those that want war, its the only thing they feel will make the world a better place, and for those that want peace to solve the problem, well for the most part they will not win simply because the dark side of the force is stronger.
So its becomes a line that is walked, diplomacy first and then with no other perceived options organized warfare, or unorganized in the modern sense.
Still in this the major think lacking is the ability to simply stop such problems from morphing into organized warfare simply because people cannot bring themselves to that, its like a computer system that collects to many errors and it some point either is just broken or needs a serious overhaul to ever run again, but the ability to stop such from occurring takes heavy attention and some luck, we do not give such a understanding of things such heavy attention.
Rome lived off of war, and in the end it died out in the same fashion all other super powers have before us, most all now just husks of the former bloody glory they had in our food chain, so does force alone work over a long enough period of time taking into account what that really means? I would say it does not, but then again to simply live in a way that will not allow for anything outside of a extreme position period probably will not work. So in this what I can say with some trust in my own thoughts is peace does not exist really, we have not gotten there as a specie collectively, and we do not carry ourselves in a manner that even permits the start of such, so are peace advocates so wrong in simply hating the fact that the passing of time will in no doubt bring along another war that in itself never really ends? I cant blame them personally, it really takes a lot of hope our of reality. I personally think the greatest error one could make is to simply accept it and move in a manner that all others eventually should be destroyed by force, or those that typically a person a group can come to hate in the other.
On one last note it would be funny if every social group somehow got a peace advocate as a leader, I imagine that the world would see a rash of assassinations. It really in me prompts to think that humans over should be prompted heavily into understanding our nature and nurture, its an age old debate with still so many X’s in the equation of understanding, and in its place what do we find?
So to blame peace advocates for war seems silly, we have never had peace advocates take any real form past a social movement, to say our policy is defined by them is something that I think would be hard to explain, did we pull out of Vietnam because of hippies, or did we pull out after over a decade for other reasons? You really can ask all of these questions on any issue, and giving the modern wars of today, I think one would be hard pressed to see where a peace advocate started them, personally I think its easy to see that these wars were started by people that choose force to solve problems they perceived.
1. Do "peace" movements advocates policies that actually result in peace or do they make war more likely?
It depends, if there are peace movements on both sides I'm going to guess it makes wars less likely. If you have a barbaric tyrant on one-side and peace advocates on the other, then I think war is more likely.
Obviously an agressive party is going to see "peace-niks" as an easy target. But that doesn't mean peace movements are doomed to fail or that it's not affective in actually creating peace....which few would argue is preferrable.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does
It depends, if there are peace movements on both sides I'm going to guess it makes wars less likely. If you have a barbaric tyrant on one-side and peace advocates on the other, then I think war is more likely.
Obviously an agressive party is going to see "peace-niks" as an easy target. But that doesn't mean peace movements are doomed to fail or that it's not affective in actually creating peace....which few would argue is preferrable.
2. Is the practice of "pacifism" something to be admired or does