I was listening to a caller on a local morning talk show the other day and he brought up the idea of pacificism to combat terrorism. I thought it was kind of funny he used combat and pacificism in the same sentence, but none the less I thought it would make for an interesting debate.

I also wanted to ask a historical question about pacificism as well.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you believe that pacificism could work against our current problems with terrorism in the world?

If yes how would this pacificism be applied and what lengths should we goto.

If no, why not.

And for the historical debate question:

2. Do you believe pacificism would have worked against Nazi Germany?


Spell checker not working so excuse any typos.

Firstly, regarding the general question, please see this thread: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=13965




Well, the obvious answer to the question is no: turning the other cheek is only effective against those to whom the immorality of indescriminate slaughter will give pause. If we are referring to Al qaeda, then clearly that will not work.

However, in a much larger sense, the answer is: maybe. A pacifist nation is not expansionist, not interventionist, does not invade other countries or use its economic or military clout to tip lections, fund rebels, overthrow governments or fund insurgencies. If the US had been non-interventionist in the Middle East, would the current problem of terrorism exist? Locally it would, the insurgency in Iraq for example is by large majority a sectarian struggle dating back 1200 years. But international terrorism exists because the problems of the foundational group or members are caused internationally. The fact that the 9/11 attack was on the United States is hardly a coincidence. (Thats not to say they deserved it or they caused it, or any such hokum).



I can't imagine the purpose of this question except either to troll, or to attempt to pre-discredit the opinions of anyone who disagrees with the fairly obvious initial opinion of the thread starter... However I may be wrong...

1. No. When you are fighting people that want you to die pacifism isn't really an option - unless you're just trying to make the aggressor's life easier. While the whole of Islam isn't looking to kill or convert everyone the part that is cannot be repelled with a pacifist stance.

2. This isn't really applicable. Nazi Germany in all its evil used an Army that was clearly defined and with a stated purpose. Some would suggest (wrongly) that most of the European countries that the Blitzkrieg was employed against might as well have used a pacifist stance for all the good their fighting tanks on horseback did.

In the fight against Islamic nut bags/fascists/fundamentalists/extremists you cannot reasonably expect them to respond in any way to pacifism other than to kill the pacifist. They do not attack organized, uniformed armies. They snipe. They lay traps. They use women and children. They fight from holy sites. They will kill the unarmed with very little concern for their standing in the world community. They are driven with religious furor and focussed hatred. You can't hold hands across Israel and hope they will see the error of their ways and not kill you to the man, woman and child.

However, the Nazi Germany comparison is something of a misguided framing of this issue.

The second question was not a troll at all. This thread is about the ideals of pacificism and not just pacificism and terrorism. As terrorism and a leader like Hitler are two totaly different entities.

If you don't want to answer the second debate question, or the first one for that matter, then don't. But please don't call the question a troll.

OK, my bad then. But seriously, you had to know asking 'how pacifism would have worked against Hitler' was a silly question. If it wasn't a troll, as you say, then I am at a loss to know what it serves. Perhaps, in the interest of the thread, you could elucidate, so that those who follow may be better able to answer the question you have posed?

In a perfect world I think pacificism is a beautiful thing. That being said there is no such thing as a perfect world and there will most likely ever will be, sad to say.

I am curious about those who believe strongly in pacificism, and how it would work if applied to nefarious people like Hitler. I want to know if they truly think it would have worked. Because according to history pacificism was never truly tried/applied against Hitler was it?

OK, so forgive me here, I'm really not trying to be mean, but now you are back to plain trolling. May I make a suggestion? If you actually want to debate the issue, delete the second question. And that being done, notice the other thread, started by Lordhelmet, which is exactly the same down to the obviously loaded manner of asking the questions. I see no point in debating the debate anymore, I answered your first question in my first post.

I guess I don't understand your point then. Are you saying we cannot debate the idea that pacificism could have possibly worked against a tyrant like Hitler? There will be other people to surface in this world that will be as bad or worse. Could pacificism work agains them. Is that better?

Yes but who or what is taking the place of Hitler in regards to terrorism. I don’t buy the idea pacifism could work against Hitler, and I don’t think such is really a feasible option against terrorism or at least the actual militant groups of such, but what is it exactly in regards to people in time and space that happen to be the terrorists, is it Iraq, or any particular nation, group of people, I mean what it is?


I would call the Taliban and for sure AQ terrorists, but that hardly equates in the Nazi war machine.

Ok It seems people have stated that pacificism won't work against the likes of Nazi Germany or radical islam.

How about this example. China has expressed their desire to take over Taiwan. Would pacificism work for Taiwan if China became aggressive and invaded to take them over?

It seems from the questions that you do not understand what pacifism is. As in Lordhelmet's debate, you are asking questions from a fairly obviously anti-pacifism stance, for what reason I can't imagine. Pacifism is a personal choice based on one's ethics; it is not a political choice - indeed a system of nation-states is inherently violent. If one chooses to be a pacifist because of one's religious or ethical beliefs, that choice is a personal one, and doesn't even necessarily include eschewing all violence - as in protecting a victim.

That choice does not rely upon a system of government, so the commonly used attack (you can only afford to be a pacifist because of the muscular guys who are willing to fight etc) is pointless. The history of pacifism includes people who lived under many forms of government, from dictatorships to democracies.

Should the US use pacifism to "fight" terrorism? It's apples and oranges. For the US to embrace pacifism as a national policy would require a revolution in the minds of the citizens, and a fundamental shifting of many many things in our country. It won't happen. Not any time remotely soon, anyway. And it would be the end of the hegemonic US; we would be a very different country on the world stage. Now, if you asked, should the US stop fighting a "war on terror" I would say yes. I can think of better ways; this isn't the thread for them. But that would be different than pacifism. Pacifism is necessarily a personal ethic. In an age of oppositional nations who spend vast amounts of their treasuries on arms and the military, in an age of tenuous borders, drawn by the colonial powers over the last several centuries, geopolitics and pacifism are sadly incompatible.

So I'm sorry to say, I find the premise of this thread to be antagonistic to real discussion of pacifism, because it's asking about global politics as a way to discredit pacifism. It should behoove us to note that every major religion has spawned a significant pacifist movement. Buddhism and Christianity are based around people who embraced pacifism. Christian history is rife with martyrs who refused to either fight or renounce their beliefs. In the garden when the Roman soldiers came, Jesus stopped Peter from continuing to resist them with violence.

Politically, I think it is important to use what means we can to promote peacefulness and pacifism in our government. On these boards I have been insulted by those who say "sure, peace is nice, great ideal, but in the real world..." My response to that is, how will peace ever be achieved if we are not working toward it? If we dismiss an ideal because we cannot see it as being effective in the "real world," we are only guaranteeing it will not come to pass. How will we ever bring an end to war if we are not striving for it? History clearly shows we cannot bring it about by continuing to kill our "enemies."

I really don't see where vermillion and quarkhead are seeing antagonistic wording in my questions.

Lets look at the questions.

1. Do you believe that pacifism could work against our current problems with terrorism in the world?
2. Do you believe pacifism would have worked against Nazi Germany?

Please point out antagonistic language in the above questions. Now if I had said "so called pacifism" or mabye "Do the silly people who practice pacifism", I could see your point...but I used very simple wording to pose these questions. It seems to me you are attacking me because you don't want me to pose these questions. Of course there are questions that accuse when asked as well, such as, "When did you stop hitting your wife?". This is, of course, a questions you cannot answer because it is trying to place guilt in the answer.

As I explained to you in a PM what you have in your 1, 2 questions is the set up for a sucker punch. The people here at have generally come here from places less civil where that tactic is employed often. We've all see it before.

Sleeper:

1. Do you believe in Conservative values?
2. Do you believe Conservative values held the proper stance in historical Conservative opinions on slavery, votes for women, desegregation, interracial marriage and blacks in the military?


Asking questions means you want an answer. When you ask a question so loaded that not only does it have only one possible answer, but that the answer can (obviously) be used to atack anyone who opposes your opinions on all other questions posed, the entire operation bcomes an excersise in trolling.

Besides, I answered your first question at some length, whoch you seem to have missed or ignored. That doesn't bode well for your desire for an actual debate on real issues. You have done almost exactly what Lordhelmet did (though he was even more blatant) when he asked essentially exactly the same loaded question in another thread I linked to above.

However, if you really want an answer to the second question, and answering it will put a halt to the endless debating of the debate, then allow me to answer it for you, and I think I can speak for the entirety of AD here:

2. No of course not.

There.

See I don't have a problem answering those two questions if you posed them in a new thread, and in fact, I think they are fantastic questions as they point out some very valid flaws with conservatism.

To me those questions are not loaded at all for a person who is willing to give an honest answer.

First I'd like to preface my statements with the fact that I'm new to this forum. I'm not saying the question is flawed, but it seems like terrorism is an outcome of a non-pacifist stance. This, however, depends on your definition of terrorism and pacifism. I am defining pacifism as not doing any harm, physical, social, or economical. Terrorism, in my opinion, has certain defining characteristics. One of which is a feeling of injustice on the part of those doing the terrorism. Whether this feeling is justified or not is irrelevant. Terrorism is an outcome of irrationality. Rationality is a requirement for the success of pacifism. They can't coexist.

“1. Do you believe that pacificism could work against our current problems with terrorism in the world?

If yes how would this pacificism be applied and what lengths should we goto.

If no, why not.” - Sleeper

Absolutely not!

Epitoma Rei Militaris! “If you want peace prepare for war!”

When the Allies stood up to Hitler he was taken out. When Reagan (how I miss that man!) stood up to the Soviet Union, “bye-bye” Soviet Union.

By contrast, when Liberal pacifists started protesting, criticizing, complaining, demonstrating, marching, wetting their beds, etc. we saw Vietnam go down in defeat.

After September 11, when G.W. Bush said we would no longer make any distinction between the terrorist and the nations that harbored them, the world trembled.

Now, that we’re tip-toeing through Iraq, the terrorist are laughing at us.

When liberals were saying it was time to retreat from Iraq and then won back the Congress, I suspect that nobody in the world was happier that day than Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

“And for the historical debate question:

2. Do you believe pacificism would have worked against Nazi Germany?” - Sleeper

Obviously not. Remember Neville Chamberlain? History has not been kind to him.

“I would call the Taliban and for sure AQ terrorists, but that hardly equates in the Nazi war machine.” – Gordo

I think you could make a pretty good argument it does equate. Both indiscriminately killed non-military men, women and children to force their beliefs on society.

Evil is evil no matter if it wears a uniform or not.

“How about this example. China has expressed their desire to take over Taiwan. Would pacificism work for Taiwan if China became aggressive and invaded to take them over?” – Sleeper

I think history is a clear indicator that pacifism does not work…period. So I see no reason why it need be tried in Taiwan.

“It seems from the questions that you do not understand what pacifism is.” – Quarkhead

“Pacifism:
1. belief in peaceful resolution of conflicts: the belief that violence, war, and the taking of lives are unacceptable ways of resolving disputes
2. refusal to participate in war: the refusal to take up arms or participate in war because of moral or religious beliefs
3. belief in diplomacy over war: the belief that international conflicts should be settled by negotiation rather than war” – MSN Dictionary
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...efid=1861698191

“In the garden when the Roman soldiers came, Jesus stopped Peter from continuing to resist them with violence.” – Quarkhead

True, but unbeknownst to Peter he was actually interfering in God’s greater plan. But let’s not forget that it was this same Jesus that picked up a whip and drove the money-changers out of the Temple. All things in context, please.

“…how will peace ever be achieved if we are not working toward it? If we dismiss an ideal because we cannot see it as being effective in the "real world," we are only guaranteeing it will not come to pass.” - Quarkhead

This is a great concept if both sides agree to work towards peace. But you have crazies out there like Kim Jong Ill in North Korea and Iran’s Ahma…? Ahmadin…? Ahmaden…?

Screw it! I’ll call him “Crazy Bob”.

Neither of these nut-jobs are looking for peace.

“How will we ever bring an end to war if we are not striving for it?” – Quarkhead

Epitoma Rei Militaris!

“History clearly shows we cannot bring it about by continuing to kill our ‘enemies.’” - Quarkhead

But doesn’t peace break-out once all your enemies are dead?

Antagonistic or not, I explained why I think the questions are flawed. They are using pacifism in the wrong context, the context of the national policy of a superpower that got to its present situation through centuries of violence. And not only for that reason - your questions ask about pacifism "working" against particular evils. Because pacifism is a personal ethical philosophy, it isn't chosen based on its efficacy against evil-minded antagonists. It is chosen as an ethical imperative. In other words, it is picked by people who use it because of what it represents ethically and morally, not because it might "work" in a particular situation.

That doesn't mean that pacifism can't work; only that it is not chosen for its practicality. It is not an ethic chosen as a pragmatic response to political events.

Now, let's make a huge leap and posit a US that was a pacifist nation. Your second question would be extremely complex to answer. Because if the US had been a pacifist nation, the decades and centuries leading up to WWII would have been very, very different. The US would not have been involved in the expansionist years, and so wouldn't present any targets to the Japanese in the Pacific. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened. It is likely that a pacifist US would have taken as many Jewish refugees as wanted to come, when Germany was first trying to expel them - instead of zero - and thus mitigated the holocaust somewhat.

A pacifist US would not have developed the "science" of Eugenics which directly inspired Adolph Hitler. With the US playing such a vastly different role in world history, we can't even say whether WWII would have even happened.

But, let's say for example - and this seems to fit the way your question is worded - that the US suddenly decided to be a nation of pacifists, in the middle of 1943. Well, of course it wouldn't "work" against Nazi Germany, because it just can't work that way. If a sufficient number of people are pacifist in a given nation, they can be effective in halting the violence committed by that nation, by refusing to work in ways that support violent effort. The Nazi war machine could have been brought to a halt by German pacifists, but not by American pacifists. But even this idea is conjecture, because I don't see how pacifism can be a "tactic." Again, for the German people to all have become pacifist would require them to all have personal revolutions, epiphanies. Because pacifism is a personal ethic, not a political strategy.

Does that help clear it up?

In previewing this post, I see Dale's post. He is making this a political debate, and equating pacifism with being a Democrat, a liberal, an appeaser. Pacifism is not on the political spectrum. I won't even rise to the bait he presents; because none of it has to do with pacifism. It would be a mistake, however, to equate Democrats or liberals with pacifism. Many pacifists are liberals, it's true, but the Democratic party is certainly not pacifist, and there are many liberals who are not pacifists at all. Any cursory glance at history will reveal that Democrats love a war about as much as Republicans.

I will say that Jesus' driving the moneylenders out of the temple was not inconsistent with his pacifism. Pacifism does not mean laying down and exposing your neck to the axe. Did Jesus actually hurt the moneylenders? Did he whip them? Or did he turn over their tables, and yell at them? He shamed them into leaving - this is a house of prayer, etc.

A few problems:



Actually, Epitoma Rei Militaris translates as 'Summary of military matters', which is actually a text written by Vegetius regarding Roman organisation. The phrase you are looking for is 'Si vis pacem, para bellum'.



Yes well, as it turns out Reagan's policies had very little to do with the collapse of the USSR, unless he arranged for the 1984 world commodity price collapse, and a number of other internal factors best left for another debate.



Yes well... in reality of course the Viet Cong and the NVA defeated the US military, and only when the scale of this constant loss of US lives and US money for no actual gain on the ground became apparent did the public opinion turn against the war.



Actually, I think the terrorists are laughing at the US because of the extensive efforts of Bush to deprioritise the war on terror after 2003: shifting money, priority, troops away from the war on terror and Afghanistan to Iraq where the war on terror did NOT exist until AFTER the US arrived: by trying to disband 'Alec Station' the CIA unit dedicated to hunting down Bin laden, by taking the eye off the ball, allowing AQ to rebuild and become more dangerous, wealthier and more numerous than they were efore 9/11. Even the US's own NIE had deemed the United States to be substantively LESS safe because of the war in Iraq and the deprioritisation of the War on Terror.



If Osama Bin laden is laughing, it is only because he has not STOPPED laughing since the day Bush Jr invaded Iraq, taking the pressure off him, allowing AQ to rebuild, creating a wealth of new recruits and allowing AQ to spread into Iraq, which had been impossible until that point.



I'm sorry, I DON'T want to get into a religious debate, but are you actually claiming that jesus was NOT a pacifist? I'm pretty sure he had quite a lot to say on that matter...