Peace Movement: Motives and Principles
Scott D. Erb
strategies of war, deterrence, and the use of military, I fully
appreciate the strong and rational belief of most Americans that
military force is necessary. I do not share the belief, being
part of what is loosely known as the "peace movement." Many
wrongly assume being for peace is simply fearing war or being
unable to recognize the reality of the situation. Just as many
in the peace movement show intolerance and attack those backing
military action as "war mongers" or "butchers," intolerance is
also shown to the peace movement which gets labeled as
"appeasers" "anti-American" or "victim blamers." My purpose in
posting this is to explain what motivates many in the peace
movement, and why I think both sides can disagree strongly on
principle, but still respect each other in the debate about what
is best for our country.
Most members of the peace movement are acting on principle,
recognizing that standing by those principles in a time when most
disagree is often dangerous and requires courage of conviction.
At the same time, most recognize that if we are ask others to
listen and respect our point of view, even if they disagree, we
must do the same. I *know* that there are very rational and
persausive arguments for the use of military force. I know that
the reason I don't embrace them comes from personal convictions
and principles which I cannot prove valid or accurate. Thus I
must respect others who disagree, I can only state my position
and the reason behind it, hoping that the spark of truth I see in
the principles strikes others in a similar matter.
One myth is that the peace movement is irrational or "doesn't
understand" the realities of war. Many people I know who are in
the peace movement are veterans (some even of high ranking, many
fought in Vietnam), academics who have studied foreign policy and
history, and philosophers. There are of course many clergy,
business people, and a range of leftists to libertarians, all who
feel that organized war is not the best response to violence or
threats.
Two quotes can perhaps help understand. One comes from Martin
Luther King, Jr., the other from Gandhi:
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending
spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead
of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you
may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact,
violence merely increases hate.... Returning violence for
violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a
night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate;
only love can do that."
- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Gandhi was similar:
"Mankind has to go out of violence only through nonviolence.
Hatred can be overcome only through love. Counter hatred only
increases the surface and depth of the hatred."
The point of each: a belief that violence as a response to
violence may yield a short term solution of revenge or
deterrence, but reinforces the long term tendancy of humans to
turn to violence as a way to solve political problems and respond
to evil or hate. The argument is essentially that it is
necessary to try to find non-violent ways to respond to violence
and hate. That doesn't mean no self-defense, and it certainly
doesn't mean acquiesence. Gandhi argued that pacifists must
resist, being willing to risk their lives to avoid cooperation
with oppressors.
Most in the peace movement have a spiritual belief that motivates
them, some are secular pacifists. Jesus, for instance, argued
the material world was less important than the spiritual world,
and thus you should follow what is right even if it means
sacrificing your life. Many Hindus and Buddhists believe in
reincarnation, arguing that the test of life is to follow
principle first. Secular pacifists argue that contributing to
the cycle of hate and violence only makes one part of the
problem, and that to build a better world a statement of peace is
necessary now.
I can only ask that those of you who find the peace movement off
base and irrational to respect that those who argue for a
non-violent alternative do so out of deep personal conviction,
principle and often courage. It's easy to go along with the
crowd, it's more difficult to speak up when ones views are
unpopular. I also hope that those like me who see themselves as
part of the peace movement recognize that hatred directed at
those who support military action is contrary to the desire to
limit hatred. They may be right, after all -- only a fool is
convinced that his beliefs are absolutely right and everyone else
must go along with him. (I for example support the 2nd amendment
as an individual right, even as I don't want to own a gun, not
just because hunting is OK, which I think it is, but also because
I recognize the sincere belief of others that this is a necessary
component of self-defense. We each have to make our own call).
I could ramble on for hours, but this is probably already so long
most have stopped reading paragraphs ago! I just wanted to say
this to try to promote American unity in purpose even as we
disagree on the means of achieving the purpose, and to encourage
that both sides respect the other as we deal with difficult
issues.
Roxanne Jekot
You know, Scott I think there is a simpler analogy...........
When a small child begins to express their independence by striking
others, the absolute wrong lesson is "don't <whack> hit <whack> him
<whack> again <whack>!"
Using violence to teach non-violence is counter productive (not to
mention just plain stupid).
Jim Ferguson
that we would all be slaves to Nazi Germany and hundreds of millions would
have perished in the gas ovens if that philosophy had been practiced in the
'40's. There have always been those who interpret "a desire for peace" as
weakness and will enslave them. According to your philosophy, the blacks
after the civil war should have accepted the injustices of the KKK and
tried to work out a dialogue with them, or the Polish people should have
accepted the occupation of their country by the Nazi's and tried to solve
things by peaceful means. Need I go on with countless other examples? When
will some people get it through their skulls that there are and always have
been individuals bent on enslavement of other groups. They are criminal and
have no regard for human lives or values that we hold so dear. They are not
swayed by reason or conscience and regard negotiations and talks as merely
another strategy to obtain their ends. They always regard pacifism as
weakness and find it an convenient way to subjugate a people. I cannot
imagine staying silent in the face of barbarians hijacking four civilian
airliners, slitting crews throats, and flying them into buildings crowded
with civilians of all nations. What barbaric acts will they try next if
decent and strong people don't rise up to stop them. If we avoid the death
of thousands of other women and children, it won't be by "grin and bear it",
but by building a coalition of people who "truly" peace, but not at any
price. People of all the world, who will draw a line in the sand, and fight
for the freedom they cherish.
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BAD06C2...@worldnet.att.net...
Nap
> strategies of war, deterrence, and the use of military,
Oh shit, Erb, now I have to clean the coffee off my monitor.
:-D That was a good one!
John T. Kennedy
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>As someone who has studied, understands, and even teaches
>strategies of war, deterrence, and the use of military,
Oh God.
Somebody please send Scott to negotiate pease with Osama bin Laden.
Soonest. I'll put up $1000 in gold to fund *that* venture but Scott
*must* go in person.
Appealing to the "ultimate weakness of violence" is a pure unholy load
of crap coming from a defender and advocate of government which can
exist only through the immoral application of violence. And that's
precisely what you are.
>
>Gandhi was similar:
>
>"Mankind has to go out of violence only through nonviolence.
>Hatred can be overcome only through love. Counter hatred only
>increases the surface and depth of the hatred."
Advocate the immediate disarming of your government and perhaps I'l
consider taking you seriously.
>
>The point of each: a belief that violence as a response to
>violence may yield a short term solution of revenge or
>deterrence, but reinforces the long term tendancy of humans to
>turn to violence as a way to solve political problems and respond
>to evil or hate. The argument is essentially that it is
>necessary to try to find non-violent ways to respond to violence
>and hate. That doesn't mean no self-defense, and it certainly
>doesn't mean acquiesence. Gandhi argued that pacifists must
>resist, being willing to risk their lives to avoid cooperation
>with oppressors.
>
>Most in the peace movement have a spiritual belief that motivates
>them, some are secular pacifists. Jesus, for instance, argued
...against violence even in self defense: Turn the other cheek.
Well?
-
John T. Kennedy III
No Treason - A Journal of Liberty
http://www.no-treason.com/
The Wild Shall Ever Wild Remain!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jtkennedy/itswhatitisnow.html
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
<snips>
>I can only ask that those of you who find the peace movement off
>base and irrational to respect that those who argue for a
>non-violent alternative do so out of deep personal conviction,
>principle and often courage.
The only relevant question at this point, Scotty, is, "Are your taxes
paid up?" Sorry. You don't get to stand on your convictions today.
Open the bomb bay doors, airman.
Mike
Christopher Morton
<jwferg...@flash.net> wrote:
>Very eloquent and forcibly stated. The reason I do not agree with you is
>that we would all be slaves to Nazi Germany and hundreds of millions would
>have perished in the gas ovens if that philosophy had been practiced in the
>'40's. There have always been those who interpret "a desire for peace" as
Scott doesn't care about such practicalities, only the appearance of
moral purity.
Scott's ultimate goal is a degree of moral paralysis engendered by
false arguments, sufficient to stifle all action.
His ultimate moral stand is to to nothing until there's nothing left
to do.
--
In Haiti, the dead walk.
In Chicago, they vote.
Christopher Morton
So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
or fine people for stealing money...?
Stupendous Man
>...
> Two quotes can perhaps help understand. One comes from Martin
> Luther King, Jr., the other from Gandhi:
That is what the “peace movement” doesn’t comprehend. Nonviolence only works when those whom you protest against have a conscious.
Stupendous Man—Annoying liberals on Usenet since 1987.
Each $1 of marginal tax rate cuts would save the private economy at
least $1.25 as deadweight losses fall and economic efficiency increases.
--Joint Economic Committee: http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/taxrates/taxrates.pdf
Roxanne Jekot
Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
in there and shoot them down. A civilized society takes the accused to
court, tries them before a jury of their peers, and practices JUSTICE.
To do otherwise is to BECOME an Osama bin Laden.
Do you get it now?
Scott D. Erb
Jim Ferguson wrote:
>
> Very eloquent and forcibly stated. The reason I do not agree with you is
> that we would all be slaves to Nazi Germany and hundreds of millions would
> have perished in the gas ovens if that philosophy had been practiced in the
> '40's.
Perhaps if the philosophy had been practiced in the twenties and
thirties Nazi Germany would never have come into being. Also to
quibble, having studied German history, Germany never had the
capacity or even the plan to take over the whole world. Their
goal was hegemony in Western Europe and dominance of Eastern
Europe. I'm also convinced that the "final solution" was only
possible if Germany were at war, and became intense only as
Germany started losing the war and Germans bought into the
argument that they had to be united as "Germans first" to protect
their homeland rather than putting principle above nationalism.
If these ideals were followed by more in Germany, perhaps Nazism
would have crumbled from within. Small wonder that pacifists
were the first who suffered in Hitler's concentration camps, and
were alongside Jews and Socialists among the most despiseds group
by Hitler's henchmen.
>There have always been those who interpret "a desire for peace" as
> weakness and will enslave them. According to your philosophy, the blacks
> after the civil war should have accepted the injustices of the KKK and
> tried to work out a dialogue with them, or the Polish people should have
> accepted the occupation of their country by the Nazi's and tried to solve
> things by peaceful means. Need I go on with countless other examples? When
Remember, Gandhi talked about passive RESISTANCE. You *never*
work with those who want to oppress and enslave, you resist with
all your mite, you just don't do so in a way that mirrors the
violence and hate being directed at you. I have no place for
so-called pacifists who cooperate with evil or refuse to counter
it.
> will some people get it through their skulls that there are and always have
> been individuals bent on enslavement of other groups. They are criminal and
> have no regard for human lives or values that we hold so dear. They are not
> swayed by reason or conscience and regard negotiations and talks as merely
> another strategy to obtain their ends. They always regard pacifism as
> weakness and find it an convenient way to subjugate a people. I cannot
But "they" require the support of many who don't necessarily
think that way, but are fooled by the "them vs. us" mentality
that arises, and fall into a game of larger collective identities
and grand ideological battles.
Still, I see what you're saying.
> imagine staying silent in the face of barbarians hijacking four civilian
> airliners, slitting crews throats, and flying them into buildings crowded
> with civilians of all nations. What barbaric acts will they try next if
> decent and strong people don't rise up to stop them.
Yes, try to stop them! Do what you can without trying to kill
them in a war (I think the acts of the passengers on the flight
that went down in Pennsylvania were heroic, and I'd have joined
them as I'm sure most would have once they found out what had
happened in New York.) Some pacifists oppose all violence, I
personally am a minimal force pacifist with a focus on self- and
other-defense.
> If we avoid the death
> of thousands of other women and children, it won't be by "grin and bear it",
> but by building a coalition of people who "truly" peace, but not at any
> price. People of all the world, who will draw a line in the sand, and fight
> for the freedom they cherish.
I almost agree -- we can't do nothing. We must build a
coalition. But we should look towards using rule of law and
positive efforts to unite people to stop supporting and work
together in stopping and rooting out terrorism. Once captured,
jail them and make them work hard. Bombing Afgahnistan or Iraq
probably won't achieve the result you want; I really think the
tactics I'd support would be more effective.
Still, I do understand your position and admit it is rational and
reasonable, even as I disagree.
Scott D. Erb
Christopher Morton wrote:
> Scott doesn't care about such practicalities, only the appearance of
> moral purity.
>
> Scott's ultimate goal is a degree of moral paralysis engendered by
> false arguments, sufficient to stifle all action.
>
> His ultimate moral stand is to to nothing until there's nothing left
> to do.
Actually, Chris, you didn't read what I posted. I think
resistance is a necessary part of a non-violent response,
resistance which requires courage. Those who do nothing in the
face of tyranny or worse cooperate with the tyrants and
oppressors are worse than those who react with force.
johnz~
John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
> In <3BAD06C2...@worldnet.att.net> "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >As someone who has studied, understands, and even teaches
> >strategies of war, deterrence, and the use of military,
>
> Oh God.
>
> Somebody please send Scott to negotiate pease with Osama bin Laden.
You must really hate bin Ladin.
>
> Soonest. I'll put up $1000 in gold to fund *that* venture but Scott
> *must* go in person.
"As Scott drones on and on, bin Ladin and his bodyguard become sleepier
and sleepier, failing to notice the peace machine* that a group of
mischievious lungs are quietly setting up behind them"
JS
*Note: lung insists the "peace machine" is *not* the corpse grinder she
got from her friend Ted V. Mikels. "it has lovely flowers and picasso
birdies and peace signs all over it." she says "it makes grinding noises
and stuff but it is not the corpse grinder. it is the peace machine. all
bin ladin has to do is stick his head inside and it will all be over
before he knows it."
(snip)
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
ShadapU
"Roxanne Jekot" <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3BAD33B6...@bellsouth.net...
<Blink> PEERS?
tices JUSTICE.
> To do otherwise is to BECOME an Osama bin Laden.
>
> Do you get it now?
That's nice. Try to stay out of the way, dearie, reality might run you
over. M'kay?
--
--
Presenting
Top Ten Ways To Get The Terrorists
(Without Really Trying)
10. Voodoo Dolls
9. Send in a covert team of WCW wrestlers for a surprise cage-match
8. Scare them into submission with our action/adventure movies
7. Beam them up, Scotty!
6. Send Ed McMahon to their door with a giant exploding Publishers Clearing
House check
5. Nab them when they go to cash in their frequent-flyer miles
4. Give Osama his own talk-show and grab him during the opening monologue
3. Send them a good-will box of Duncan's napalm jelly-doughnuts
2. Flush them out with loud rock music
And the #1 way to get the terrorists without really trying:
(Drumroll)
1. Huge robotic spiders that shoot lasers out of their eyes!
Procession of the Damned http://home.att.net/~zazel/alienz.htm
>
Stupendous Man
>
>
> Jim Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> Very eloquent and forcibly stated. The reason I do not agree with you is
>> that we would all be slaves to Nazi Germany and hundreds of millions would
>> have perished in the gas ovens if that philosophy had been practiced in the
>> '40's.
> Perhaps if the philosophy had been practiced in the twenties and
> thirties Nazi Germany would never have come into being. Also to
> quibble, having studied German history, Germany never had the
> capacity or even the plan to take over the whole world. Their
>
> goal was hegemony in Western Europe and dominance of Eastern
> Europe. I'm also convinced that the "final solution" was only
> possible if Germany were at war, and became intense only as
> Germany started losing the war and Germans bought into the
> argument that they had to be united as "Germans first" to protect
> their homeland rather than putting principle above nationalism.
Even before then Waffen SS units fought alongside the Wermacht and were responsible for liquidating “undesirables” in occupied countries.
> If these ideals were followed by more in Germany, perhaps Nazism
> would have crumbled from within. Small wonder that pacifists
> were the first who suffered in Hitler's concentration camps, and
> were alongside Jews and Socialists among the most despiseds group
> by Hitler's henchmen.
>
>> weakness and will enslave them. According to your philosophy, the blacks
>> after the civil war should have accepted the injustices of the KKK and
>> tried to work out a dialogue with them, or the Polish people should have
>> accepted the occupation of their country by the Nazi's and tried to solve
>> things by peaceful means. Need I go on with countless other examples? When
> Remember, Gandhi talked about passive RESISTANCE. You *never*
> work with those who want to oppress and enslave, you resist with
> all your mite, you just don't do so in a way that mirrors the
> violence and hate being directed at you. I have no place for
> so-called pacifists who cooperate with evil or refuse to counter
> it.
There has never been a single peace movement that has succeeded against a totalitarian regime without the help of a military movement or ally.
Face it, people who kill innocents are not likely to be swayed by someone holding a “give peace a chance” sign.
Stupendous Man—Enemy of Totalitarianism.
A reduction in marginal income tax rates would increase the rewards to additional
labor earnings. In response, workers may increase overtime hours or moonlighting,
increase work intensity, add to their human capital to boost earnings, or be more
likely to enter the labor force or delay retirement. Some groups, including married
women, have been found to be quite responsive to changes in after-tax wages.
Billy Beck
"ShadapU" <vlad...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Roxanne Jekot" <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote...
>> > So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
>> > or fine people for stealing money...?
>>
>> Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
>> in there and shoot them down. A civilized society takes the accused to
>> court, tries them before a jury of their peers, and prac-
>
><Blink> PEERS?
<applause!> Oh, that's very good. Quite very good.
You fingered the outrageous moral equivocation in this with a
single word.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Billy Beck
Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>> >You know, Scott I think there is a simpler analogy...........
>> >
>> >When a small child begins to express their independence by striking
>> >others, the absolute wrong lesson is "don't <whack> hit <whack> him
>> ><whack> again <whack>!"
>> >
>> >Using violence to teach non-violence is counter productive (not to
>> >mention just plain stupid).
>>
>> So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
>> or fine people for stealing money...?
>
>Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
>in there and shoot them down. A civilized society takes the accused to
>court, tries them before a jury of their peers, and practices JUSTICE.
>To do otherwise is to BECOME an Osama bin Laden.
>
>Do you get it now?
I do.
You people think this is a college lecture. You think it's about
"teaching lessons", and you hold out these "principles" of
non-violence, which I would be quite interested to see in action
against a homicidal maniac or, perhaps in your own case, Roxanne, a
rapist.
Tell me something: do you think it was morally reprehensible to
engage Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in battle on the high seas?
Billy Beck
"Nap" <an...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>> As someone who has studied, understands, and even teaches
>> strategies of war, deterrence, and the use of military,
>
>Oh shit, Erb, now I have to clean the coffee off my monitor.
>
>:-D That was a good one!
Why? It's true. He likes to play with trash bags full of little
plastic soldiers on a piece of plywood in his Mr. Rogers home studio
set.
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> When a small child begins to express their independence by striking
> others, the absolute wrong lesson is "don't <whack> hit <whack> him
> <whack> again <whack>!"
>
> Using violence to teach non-violence is counter productive (not to
> mention just plain stupid).
Your analogy sucks.
When a small child misbehaves, he has a PARENT whose authority helps
teach the child right from wrong.
There is no equivalent "parental authority" to show Iraq and Afghanistan
the error of their ways.
The world is not a "family."
It's largely an anarchy of petty dictatorships who enjoy making war.
As for that shopworn concept of "international law," law is useless
without law-enforcement.
And as you know, the United Nations has no guns.
Since when did you become a pacifist?
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
9-11.
Answer the call!
Steven Litvintchouk
> . . . .
> Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
> in there and shoot them down. A civilized society takes the accused to
> court, tries them before a jury of their peers, and practices JUSTICE.
> To do otherwise is to BECOME an Osama bin Laden.
>
> Do you get it now?
It is you who do not get it.
As usual.
The world of international intelligence (CIA, NSA, etc.) is almost never
able to obtain enough evidence for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
You often have to act on far less information.
Secondly, you continue to ignore the fact that Bin Laden's terrorism is
STATE-SUPPORTED.
If you think that The Hague or any other international court is going to
get Saddam Hussein to give himself up, you are living in a fantasy
world.
If you think that the entire Taliban government is going to surrender
because some international body passed some resolution or legal
condemnation document, you are also living in a fantasy world.
Since when did you become a pacifist?
Since when did you start shrinking from the right of self-defense?
Michael Schneider
> In <3BAD06C2...@worldnet.att.net> "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >As someone who has studied, understands, and even teaches
> >strategies of war, deterrence, and the use of military,
>
> Oh God.
>
> Somebody please send Scott to negotiate pease with Osama bin Laden.
>
> Soonest. I'll put up $1000 in gold to fund *that* venture but Scott
> *must* go in person.
I'll chip in if he takes Dave "Mini-Me" Martin along as well.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Who Cares?
"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3bad6f5b...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> I do.
>
> You people think this is a college lecture.
It takes one to know one.
> Tell me something: do you think it was morally reprehensible to
> engage Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in battle on the high seas?
It depends.
Are we engaging the Admiral as a
"sovereign individual" in a rowboat,
armed with 1903 30-06...
Or as a "national citizen" aboard
an aircraft carrier built with tax money?
Steven Litvintchouk
Billy, it's worse than that:
Roxanne would have had us bring Admiral Yamamoto to TRIAL in The Hague,
rather than what we did--break Japan militarily and force their
unconditional surrender.
In this case, capturing Bin Laden, even killing him, is secondary. We
must break his ORGANIZATION, Al-Qaeda (sp?). And the derivative
requirement is that we must break any government that shelters his
Al-Qaeda agents, rather than giving them up to us.
I know you know all this already, but Roxanne keeps shying away from the
fact that either the Taliban or Saddam Hussein (or both) are as equally
guilty as Bin Laden.
Roxanne used to be a very sensible poster on these NGs. Somewhere along
the line, she metamorphosed into a foo-foo or something.
ShadapU
I'll say it again: Thank God Gore didn't win.
--
--
Presenting
Top Ten Ways To Get The Terrorists
(Without Really Trying)
10. Voodoo Dolls
9. Send in a covert team of WCW wrestlers for a surprise cage-match
8. Scare them into submission with our action/adventure movies
7. Beam them up, Scotty!
6. Send Ed McMahon to their door with a giant exploding Publishers Clearing
House check
5. Nab them when they go to cash in their frequent-flyer miles
4. Give Osama his own talk-show and grab him during the opening monologue
3. Send them a good-will box of Duncan's napalm jelly-doughnuts
2. Flush them out with loud rock music
And the #1 way to get the terrorists without really trying:
(Drumroll)
1. Huge robotic spiders that shoot lasers out of their eyes!
Armed: Rugged Robotic Surveillance For A New World
http://home.att.net/~vladdrac/armed.html
Procession of the Damned http://home.att.net/~zazel/alienz.htm
>
>
Who Cares?
news:3BAD76C1...@earthlink.net...
>
> Roxanne used to be a very sensible poster on these NGs. Somewhere along
> the line, she metamorphosed into a foo-foo or something.
Like I told Beck in '98, we've entered an
extended period of irrationality. Of course,
in '98 it wasn't as obvious as in these post-Crash,
post-WTC days.
Clinton was the icing on the cake. He defracted
the public mind like a kalidoscope, splintering
everyone into differing beliefs and views of
reality.
Immediately after Clinton was elected in '92
I stopped at a restaurant to buy a paper.
On paper rack #1, the headlines read
"Clinton supports gays in military"
Paper #2 read
"Clinton opposes gays in military"
But it looks like it's finally coming to an end.
Robert Lee
>> So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
>> or fine people for stealing money...?
>
> Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
> in there and shoot them down.
So, essentially, "an eye for an eye" breaks down for you as soon as the
rubber meets the road and it really means "an eye for an eye."
How convenient.
--Robert
--
Salt, sweat, sugar on the asphalt
Our hearts littering the topsoil
Robert Lee
news:3bad714f...@news.mindspring.com:
>
> You fingered the outrageous moral equivocation in this with a
> single word.
Outstanding.
Robert Lee
> Roxanne would have had us bring Admiral Yamamoto to TRIAL in The Hague,
Which, naturally, would have taken years and years and required the blood
of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans.
But, hey, at least we'd have a trial, and no "collateral damage" on *their*
side!
Well, if the war hadn't ground to a stalemate, long before...
Robert Lee
> You people think this is a college lecture.
That's precisely what I think, and I was about to jump on the word "teach"
until I saw your post. This isn't about "teaching." It's about *ending.*
And it's about fucking time.
Liberal Klown
<cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>>
>> As someone who has studied, understands, and even teaches
>You know, Scott I think there is a simpler analogy...........
>
>When a small child begins to express their independence by striking
>others, the absolute wrong lesson is "don't <whack> hit <whack> him
><whack> again <whack>!"
>
>Using violence to teach non-violence is counter productive (not to
>mention just plain stupid).
Sometimes a child won't learn not to touch a hot stove until he
touches that hot stove and burns himself.
Somtimes you have use violence when the perpetrator feels violence is
his only means of making a statement.
Liberal Klown
<cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I wouldn't want Osama bin Laden tried in a court of law. He's got
enough money to hire Johnny Cochran or Alan Derschowitz to defend him.
I want him dead on the field.
Liberal Klown
The peace movement was partly responsible for our defeat in Vietnam,
Morale is an important facet in a fighting army. Peace demonstators
greeted returning troops with taunts of callling them babykillers and
spitting on them. Troops became effective on the field because they
felt they were not getting support back at home. Congress was no help
since they wanted to run the military from Capitol Hill and imposed
unreasonable rules of battle. I feel My Lai and incidents like it
occurred out of frustration becaue the troops had to deal with the
stress from the enemy and at home. I had several buddies who wanted to
go back to Nam because they were not welcomed at home.
Gandalf Grey
I have a deep appreciation for the peace movement and I've been a part of it
in the past, but I don't think America can follow that road this time. I'm
not in favor of turning the Middle East into a parking lot as some of the
trigger-happy usuals in the group, but I am in favor of a long term armed
pro-active commitment to combating terrorism so long as that commitment goes
hand in hand with a reassesment of America's past role in promoting
terrorism in the third world. We are not blameless in this mess by any
means, but that kind of guilt trip can't keep us from reacting with as much
force as is necessary to what I consider the pre-eminent threat of this
century.
The reason I feel we must meet this with an armed response is that the Bin
Laden network is dedicated to continuing its activities if we take little or
no action in response. Bin Laden and his followers are not going to stop
because they're being ignored. These are not snotty nosed boors who give up
if no one pays any attention. These are not people who just wanted to make
a point. These are murderers who will not stop until they destroy America.
It's not that they're going to get even more fierce if they note a strong
peace movement in America, it's that it won't make any difference to them
one way or the other. bin Laden already sees us as decadent cowards who
have no stomach for battle, but he's prepared to murder us whether we show
up to fight or not.
Taking another look at America's role in the Middle East won't help either.
It's gone way beyond just getting America out of the Middle East. That is
one aspect of classic fringe Islamic terrorism, but it is not the sole---or
even the most important---motivation of bin Laden. bin Laden wants us dead.
Now that they've seen what they can do, they'll be up for doing more. The
WTC attack was not the Big One. It was only a prelude for what bin Laden
has in store for our country. In the light of this, even if we could
somehow put to one side what we intend to do about the deaths of thousands
of innocent civilians and somehow live with our consciences, we would still
have to confront the question of what we're going to do about the future of
our citizens.
And make no mistake, there's no way that we can somehow protect ourselves
from anything the terrorists plan on doing without turning this country into
a draconian police state. That's just not possible without shutting down
nearly every freedom that makes being an American worthwhile.
If it were possible to bring bin Laden to trial, it would change virtually
nothing. Having studied the way terrorist organizations in the Middle East
have evolved, I feel confident in saying that if all we're going to do is
hunt bin Laden down, we might as well stay home. Middle Eastern terrorist
organizations are a world-wide entity, they are well developed, and there's
no way we're going to feel justified in going back to the freedoms we once
enjoyed until the better part of those organizations have been utterly
destroyed.
As I said, I have a deep respect for the American Peace Movement, and I also
believe that it's important for that movement to be active now because I
believe that our country works best when there is a tension between hawks
and doves...it keeps our government more open and makes it far less likely
that the military will overstep its bounds. But as a policy for the
government, peace movements will not work against an enemy like bin Laden
because there is nothing to cooperate over and there is nothing to
compromise over. It's hatred, pure and simple. All we have that the bin
Laden's of the world want are our lives. If you think that they want
justice and equality in their countries, you're wrong. If you think they
want cultural recognition, you're wrong. Even if you think they just want
America out of the Middle East you're wrong. The followers of bin Laden
want us dead. There isn't much they'll stop at to achieve that end, and
they won't be satisfied with anything else.
Even though I'm a buddhist, I am not prepared to give my life for the sake
of someone else's blind hatred of the fact that I am an American. And I'm
not willing to sacrifice the lives of future Americans because I find battle
against the bin Laden's of the world distasteful.
This, in my opinion, is one of those battles that have to be fought. And
may God have mercy on us all.
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BAD06C2...@worldnet.att.net...
Who Cares?
news:9ok3h3$mn5$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> I have a deep appreciation for the peace movement and I've been a part of
it
> in the past, but I don't think America can follow that road this time.
> We are not blameless in this mess by any
> means, but that kind of guilt trip can't keep us from reacting with as
much
> force as is necessary to what I consider the pre-eminent threat of this
> century.
Well, it's about fricking time.
> one way or the other. bin Laden already sees us as decadent cowards who
> have no stomach for battle, but he's prepared to murder us whether we show
> up to fight or not.
Exactly right, and it's not just Bin Laden.
> Taking another look at America's role in the Middle East won't help
either.
Exactly right.
> It's gone way beyond just getting America out of the Middle East.
If we had done it before the attack, perhaps.
But exactly right. We can't do it now.
> Even though I'm a buddhist, I am not prepared to give my life for the sake
> of someone else's blind hatred of the fact that I am an American. And I'm
> not willing to sacrifice the lives of future Americans because I find
battle
> against the bin Laden's of the world distasteful.
Jesus Chris, this is the most level-headed,
thoughtful and appropriate thing I've
ever seen out of you.
And it's spot on.
I never liked Gingrich much. But this "Ten Principles"
sums it all up. It's one thing to hear Powell talk about
"attack on civilization", it's another to understand
exactly how he arrived at that thought -
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bad6e03088c.htm
It's clear that our government has been pondering this for
some time now. It's too well-fleshed out. My guess
is that Congress and the military decided that Clinton
wasn't the right president to follow through, and the
issue was never forced.
Itold...@rightwing.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
> Why? It's true. He likes to play with trash bags full of little
>plastic soldiers on a piece of plywood in his Mr. Rogers home studio
>set.
How is that different from you telling us how brave you are, Batshit
Be "brave"
Tell us about Burger King and your involvement in that little episode
Itold...@rightwing.com
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>Scott's ultimate goal is a degree of moral paralysis engendered by
>false arguments, sufficient to stifle all action.
"false argument"?
Like your 2nd amendment arguments, fuckwit?
Itold...@rightwing.com
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>Using violence to teach non-violence is counter productive (not to
>>mention just plain stupid).
>
>So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
>or fine people for stealing money...?
Or beat some sense into your empty head for being stupid?
Itold...@rightwing.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
> You fingered the outrageous moral equivocation in this with a
>single word.
BURGERKING?
Chris Morton
>
>
>
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>> Scott doesn't care about such practicalities, only the appearance of
>> moral purity.
>>
>> Scott's ultimate goal is a degree of moral paralysis engendered by
>> false arguments, sufficient to stifle all action.
>>
>> to do.
>
>Actually, Chris, you didn't read what I posted. I think
>resistance is a necessary part of a non-violent response,
>resistance which requires courage. Those who do nothing in the
>face of tyranny or worse cooperate with the tyrants and
>oppressors are worse than those who react with force.
However, unless you've changed a LOT of your previously stated positions, your
"resistance" amounts to little more than platitudes, since you will have hemmed
yourself in with so many strictures that you'd be doing good to fire off a
pistol in Bin Laden's general direction.
Chris Morton
>
>
>
>Jim Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> Very eloquent and forcibly stated. The reason I do not agree with you is
>> that we would all be slaves to Nazi Germany and hundreds of millions would
>> have perished in the gas ovens if that philosophy had been practiced in the
>> '40's.
>
>Perhaps if the philosophy had been practiced in the twenties and
>thirties Nazi Germany would never have come into being. Also to
But it wasn't, and therein lies the fatal flaw in your and the War Resisters
League's standard arguments. Saying, "We didn't start this war, why ask us
NOW?" isn't a solution, just an evasion.
When the Germans march into Poland or the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor, or Bin
Laden blows up the World Trade Center, you're left with what's actually happened
on the ground, not what you WISH had or hadn't happened. You can either do
something practical about it, or you can just capitulate and let the other side
do as they will... assuming you consider them the other side. Some people
didn't and don't.
There's no more to negotiate with Bin Laden than there was with Hitler. The
frames of reference are so utterly different that the two positions are mutually
exclusive... nevermind the actual morality of the positions (women working vs.
women starving, etc.).
Chris Morton
>
>> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
>--B_3084037223_232356
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
>
>On 2001-09-22 5:42 PM, in article 3BAD06C2...@worldnet.att.net, "Scott
>D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>...
>> Two quotes can perhaps help understand. One comes from Martin
>> Luther King, Jr., the other from Gandhi:
>
>Germany, Soviet Russia, or Taliban Afghanistan.
>
>That is what the łpeace movement˛ doesnšt comprehend. Nonviolence only
>works when those whom you protest against have a conscious.
Had Gandhi been up against the French (nevermind Hitler), you wouldn't even know
his name. These Berkley types have never dealt directly with anyone who views
aerial bombing as a crowd control technique, as did the French in pre-war
Indo-China.
I once had a conversation with one of these guys about the uses of power. We
roll-played a dictatorship and a non-violent resistance. Every scenario ended
with the other guy dead and me still in charge. When he said others would take
his place, I just said, "I'll kill them too", repeating as necessary. They've
never confronted anybody more ruthless than Rudy Giuliani. It doesn't take much
to imagine how they'd deal with a Saddam Hussein. They'd die... or fold, most
likely the latter. And come to think of it, we got our proof a few weeks ago
when they announced they weren't going to China to protest the WTO. Gee, I
wonder why...?
Chris Morton
>
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>> >When a small child begins to express their independence by striking
>> >others, the absolute wrong lesson is "don't <whack> hit <whack> him
>> ><whack> again <whack>!"
>> >
>> >Using violence to teach non-violence is counter productive (not to
>> >mention just plain stupid).
>>
>> So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
>> or fine people for stealing money...?
>
>Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
When you hang someone for committing murder, the punishment fits the crime.
>in there and shoot them down. A civilized society takes the accused to
>court, tries them before a jury of their peers, and practices JUSTICE.
>To do otherwise is to BECOME an Osama bin Laden.
And lots of "civilized" countries KILL you when you violently resist going to
court, as undoubtedly Osama Bin Laden and his men will. Otherwise, NOBODY would
ever go to court for anything.
>Do you get it now?
I always got it. You have no real understanding of the situation at hand nor of
the players. This is a POLITICAL, not a criminal matter. War is politics by
other means (You've probably never heard that before).
What's not to get?
Chris Morton
says...
As we used to say in the 2nd Infantry Division, let your conscience be your
guide.
If you think you can "beat some sense" into me, give it a shot.
I mean, you're not a C O W A R D , are you?
Of course, if you weren't a coward, you could answer the question posed too.
Chris Morton
says...
The Attorney General agrees with ME.
Who agrees with you? Bin Laden?
After all, that's what you're in favor of, isn't it? Unlimited, unchallenged
government power? Kind of like the Taliban, huh?
Scott D. Erb
Stupendous Man wrote:
>
> Scott, I am shocked that someone who has “read, learned about
> and taught” history doesn’t know that there were widespread
> peace movements in the 1920s and 1930s.
I made the point that German pacifists were among the first
Hitler put in concentration camps.
> They only took root in
> liberal democracies, and while Germany had one, too, it was
> eliminated along with all other resistance to Nazi power in the
> early 1930s.
Exactly my point.
> > quibble, having studied German history, Germany never had the
> > capacity or even the plan to take over the whole world.
> Their
> >
>
> Untrue. An atomic bomb plus the V2 rocket makes them supreme
> over all other powers. Once America entered WWII German
> strategists started working on ways to attack America. They
> even managed to perform a successful recon flight to New York
> and back from occupied France. Their third generation missile
> was a true ICBM.
Your imagination is running wild, but the facts are that
Germany's goal was Europe and its capacity was stretched to the
max in even trying to achieve that goal. The idea that Germany
would or could conquer the world is absurd.
> > goal was hegemony in Western Europe and dominance of Eastern
> > Europe. I'm also convinced that the "final solution" was
> only
> > possible if Germany were at war, and became intense only as
> > Germany started losing the war and Germans bought into the
> > argument that they had to be united as "Germans first" to
> protect
> > their homeland rather than putting principle above
> nationalism.
>
> On the contrary, the Final Solution was decided upon in May,
> 1942. Long before defeats at Stalingrad, Leningrad and El
> Alemain made it clear they were no longer in control of their
> own destiny.
That does not deny my point. I have no doubt that leaders would
want to plan this even if Germany was not at war. The
willingness of people to either participate or turn the way other
way rather than resist would not have existed absent war, and
such resistance became virtually nil as it became clear the Reich
was losing.
> Even before then Waffen SS units fought alongside the Wermacht
> and were responsible for liquidating “undesirables” in occupied
> countries.
True.
> > If these ideals were followed by more in Germany, perhaps
> Nazism
> > would have crumbled from within. Small wonder that pacifists
> > were the first who suffered in Hitler's concentration camps,
> and
> > were alongside Jews and Socialists among the most despiseds
> group
> > by Hitler's henchmen.
>
> You mean “other” socialists.
Hitler was a right wing nationalist, who used "socialism" in name
only to try to lure people to his party, he liquidated the left
wing of his party soon after coming to power as well. If you
need a lesson in the differences between socialism and fascism, I
can provide one.
-snip
> Refusing to cooperate doesn’t get the job done. The people who
> are killing are still in power.
>
> There has never been a single peace movement that has succeeded
> against a totalitarian regime without the help of a military
> movement or ally.
So? There has never been a peace movement that has been more
than a small group of people speaking out against violence.
German non-violent resistance to French occupation of the
Rheinland and German industrial centers actually hurt the French
and helped force them to retreat. But military reactions to evil
regimes has not created a world absent those regimes, or a world
absent violence and hate.
> Face it, people who kill innocents are not likely to be swayed
> by someone holding a “give peace a chance” sign.
Face it, that is not what I'm talking about. Non-violent
resistance is active, not just holding a sign. And it will never
be effective if most of the world is thinking in terms of hate
and revenge, or if they get caught up in the logic of war. But
each of us has to act in accordance with our own beliefs and
principles, and if that means you want to take a gun and resist
with violence, go ahead. Others might not believe that those
means are moral -- some might look at the morality of the means
as the issue, not an ends justifies the means approach. But
perhaps we can agree on one thing: resistance is required. Be it
violent or non-violent, resistance to oppression and tyranny is
better than collaboration and turning away and doing nothing.
Scott D. Erb
Robert Lee wrote:
>
> Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:3BAD33B6...@bellsouth.net:
>
> >> So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
> >> or fine people for stealing money...?
> >
> > Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
> > in there and shoot them down.
>
> So, essentially, "an eye for an eye" breaks down for you as soon as the
> rubber meets the road and it really means "an eye for an eye."
>
> How convenient.
An interesting bit by a Jewish pacifist philosopher about the
"eye for an eye" issue. He's quoted by a guy named Matthew:
"You have heard that it was said 'an eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil.
But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the
other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let
him take your cloak as well..."
Personally, I find Jesus' pacifism too extreme, though Christian
colleagues of mine point out that Augustine, Aquanis and others
have dealt with those issues by saying Jesus was talking about a
perfect world, not the real world we are in. I do think, though,
nominal Christians who like to talk about an "eye for an eye"
need to question whether or not that is what their religion
really teaches, especially since most Christian theologians
believe that Jesus' teachings alter the Old testament (that's why
they don't do sacrifices, for instance).
I think his teachings are wise, but I find a literal taking of
what he says too extreme. You have to resist evil.
Kurt Nicklas
KATHERINE HARRIS??
<SNICKER>
--
Kurt Nicklas
Scott D. Erb
Chris Morton wrote:
>
> In article <3BAD39CA...@worldnet.att.net>, "Scott says...
> >
> >Actually, Chris, you didn't read what I posted. I think
> >resistance is a necessary part of a non-violent response,
> >resistance which requires courage. Those who do nothing in the
> >face of tyranny or worse cooperate with the tyrants and
> >oppressors are worse than those who react with force.
>
> However, unless you've changed a LOT of your previously stated positions, your
> "resistance" amounts to little more than platitudes, since you will have hemmed
> yourself in with so many strictures that you'd be doing good to fire off a
> pistol in Bin Laden's general direction.
My position is the same as it has always been: non-violent
resistance by any effective means at ones' disposal, with a
willingness to die rather than collaborate and acquiesce.
MB
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>My position is the same as it has always been: non-violent
>resistance by any effective means at ones' disposal, with a
>willingness to die rather than collaborate and acquiesce.
I'm sure that your family (if you even have one, limp dick) will
appreciate your concern.
After you resist with "non-violent" means and your wife and daughter
are raped, you'll be willing to die eh? Or, for you, after you
whimper and surrender, your boyfriend will be sodomized?
People like you should be used as human shields for our brave troops.
Scott D. Erb
If you've read work on the psychology of war propaganda, or
things like "Faces of the Enemy" about how we construct the
"other," in a conflict, we need to be careful of the traditional
discursive strategy of constructing the other as not only pure
evil, but of virtual omnipotence. Bin Laden and his followers
are warped in their understanding of the world, but they aren't
insane cowards, they believe they are at war, and they have a
purpose in that war. More than that, most in the mideast or even
Afghanistan do not have the kind of perspective as the group
around Bin Laden. The "jihad" types hope the US responds in a
military manner because they think that's the only way to ignite
a jihad to get the rest on their side (they'll be engaging in
similar attempts to paint the US as evil and wanting to eliminate
Islam).
That being said, I certainly understand your perspective too, and
agree completely we need dialogue and debate about such issues in
order to avoid simply rushing headlong into an action without
consideration of alternatives and various other perspectives --
that kind of debate is why democracy works. I *know* that a
military action will be taken, I hope that it is rational,
limited, and effective, and I hope it has minimal loss of life on
either side. I believe that there is danger that this will
intensify emotions on both sides and make the conflict deeper.
My hope is that if people respect and consider the arguments of
the peace movement they will be realistic in considering that
danger and it will help lead to choices less likely to create a
catastrophe. And I hope that regardless of how people react to
this crisis, they at least consider the possibility that King and
Gandhi had a point, even if they don't believe it applies in
every case.
Martin McPhillips
>
> I never liked Gingrich much. But this "Ten Principles"
> sums it all up. It's one thing to hear Powell talk about
> "attack on civilization", it's another to understand
> exactly how he arrived at that thought -
> http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bad6e03088c.htm
>
> It's clear that our government has been pondering this for
> some time now. It's too well-fleshed out. My guess
> is that Congress and the military decided that Clinton
> wasn't the right president to follow through, and the
> issue was never forced.
It's amusing to think that Clinton is so often touted as a "brilliant
guy," when at best he's merely glib. Look at his national security team:
Berger, Albright, Cohen, Talbott. Bill Richardson, who gnawed on his
fingers while he was being chastised by a Congressional committee,
was probably, while he was at the U.N., the least objectionable of the
lot. Holbrook was a careerist who was central to the diplomatic
fraud foisted during the Kosovo adventure.
The first requirement for being in this group, apparently, was
that no one could be smarter than Clinton, which of course made
for a very dull-witted assemblage.
Jack Dawes
"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
> In <3BAD06C2...@worldnet.att.net> "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >As someone who has studied, understands, and even teaches
> >strategies of war, deterrence, and the use of military,
>
> Oh God.
>
> Somebody please send Scott to negotiate pease with Osama bin Laden.
>
> Soonest. I'll put up $1000 in gold to fund *that* venture but Scott
> *must* go in person.
>
I will add another $ 1000 in gold to the pot if he will take his
good friend and fellow scholar " Mr." Lochner with him.
Jack
Roxanne Jekot
>
> Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Christopher Morton wrote:
>
> >> >You know, Scott I think there is a simpler analogy...........
> >> >
> >> >others, the absolute wrong lesson is "don't <whack> hit <whack> him
> >> ><whack> again <whack>!"
> >> >
> >> >mention just plain stupid).
> >>
> >> or fine people for stealing money...?
> >
> >Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
> >court, tries them before a jury of their peers, and practices JUSTICE.
> >To do otherwise is to BECOME an Osama bin Laden.
> >
>
>
> You people think this is a college lecture. You think it's about
> "teaching lessons", and you hold out these "principles" of
> non-violence, which I would be quite interested to see in action
> against a homicidal maniac or, perhaps in your own case, Roxanne, a
> rapist.
Been there, done that a$$hole. And guess what? I'm alive - no thanks
to that piece of paper I had from a court telling the man holding the
gun to my head to stay away. The same bully who put a gun in his
screaming 4 yr. old's mouth and told me to "shut her up or I will." The
same bully who for 10 years the courts protected!!
So, unless you speak from experience, I suggest you have nothing
worthwile to add here.
I wanted revenge that day, and for many days after. But, revenge never
came, I walked away, I improved my life and the lives of my children
without the bully. But you tell me, what would it have accomplished if
we *both* had guns that day and I killed *him* traumatizing 3 small
children in the process??????????
You can bet, for years afterwards, if it had ever come to him or me
again, it would have been a battle. I would never have hesitated.
But, that kind of violence would have proved nothing. It would have
simply made my children orphans, and put me in jail for "murder."
So, you tell me, how is it right for a *country* to ignore it's own laws
of justice, just because an angry mob says "do it!" when that same
system of justice would convict me of a crime.
This call for revenge makes this country as bad as Osama bin Laden; it
shows the angry mob for what is it - a society of revenge; calling for a
holy war just like the THEM.
Roxanne Jekot
>
> Billy Beck wrote:
> >
> > Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Christopher Morton wrote:
> >
> > >> >You know, Scott I think there is a simpler analogy...........
> > >> >
> > >> >When a small child begins to express their independence by striking
> > >> >others, the absolute wrong lesson is "don't <whack> hit <whack> him
> > >> ><whack> again <whack>!"
> > >> >
> > >> >Using violence to teach non-violence is counter productive (not to
> > >> >mention just plain stupid).
> > >>
> > >> So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
> > >> or fine people for stealing money...?
> > >
> > >Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
> > >in there and shoot them down. A civilized society takes the accused to
> > >court, tries them before a jury of their peers, and practices JUSTICE.
> > >To do otherwise is to BECOME an Osama bin Laden.
> > >
> > >Do you get it now?
> >
> > I do.
> >
> > You people think this is a college lecture. You think it's about
> > "teaching lessons", and you hold out these "principles" of
> > non-violence, which I would be quite interested to see in action
> > against a homicidal maniac or, perhaps in your own case, Roxanne, a
> > rapist.
> >
> > engage Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in battle on the high seas?
>
> Billy, it's worse than that:
>
> Roxanne would have had us bring Admiral Yamamoto to TRIAL in The Hague,
> rather than what we did--break Japan militarily and force their
> unconditional surrender.
>
> In this case, capturing Bin Laden, even killing him, is secondary. We
> must break his ORGANIZATION, Al-Qaeda (sp?). And the derivative
> requirement is that we must break any government that shelters his
> Al-Qaeda agents, rather than giving them up to us.
>
> I know you know all this already, but Roxanne keeps shying away from the
> fact that either the Taliban or Saddam Hussein (or both) are as equally
> guilty as Bin Laden.
I don't shy away from that Steven. Hell, we could stand here pointing
the finger at any number of countries. To what purpose?????????
Currently, we *need* those countries to carry out our revenge. Ever
heard of Saudi Arabia?
> Roxanne used to be a very sensible poster on these NGs. Somewhere along
> the line, she metamorphosed into a foo-foo or something.
I'm still sensible, more sensible than most posters here actually. It
makes me sick to come into this newsgroup and watch an angry mob of US
citizens calling for bloody revenge. It makes me sick to watch the
majority in this newsgroup act like the animal Osama bin Laden is; he
has achieved his goal. Osama bin Laden has brought this country to his
level.
If these terrorists *had* a point (other than mass destruction and
bloody revenge) why would they NOT make it now? The world is watching,
they have a world stage at this exact moment and if they had a CAUSE,
they would come out and make it known. Yet they hide in caves and
countries which support them.
You idiots just don't get it -- they ARE making their statement -- they
are showing the world the USA is JUST LIKE THEM, and you stand in line
like sheep waving flags and yelling "get them!"
Chris Morton
Then you would still allow aggressors to win through inaction on your part.
Taoism is an interesting philosophy, but not one on which I'd premise my freedom
and safety on a global stage.
Roxanne Jekot
>
> Roxanne Jekot wrote:
> >
> > When a small child begins to express their independence by striking
> > others, the absolute wrong lesson is "don't <whack> hit <whack> him
> > <whack> again <whack>!"
> >
> > Using violence to teach non-violence is counter productive (not to
> > mention just plain stupid).
>
> When a small child misbehaves, he has a PARENT whose authority helps
> teach the child right from wrong.
> There is no equivalent "parental authority" to show Iraq and Afghanistan
> the error of their ways.
Oh really? Then I must assume you agree with Milosevic that the UN
tribunal is not a valid court? And the Nuremberg trials as well?
> The world is not a "family."
> It's largely an anarchy of petty dictatorships who enjoy making war.
Like your boy Bush who needed a war to boost a slumping economy you
mean?
>
> Since when did you become a pacifist?
I'm not a pacifist..........I'm intelligent enough to see that violence
begets violence. I refuse to be a part of an angry mob and stoop to the
level of Osama bin Laden. I refuse to become what the terrorists are -
a bunch of chicken sh$t terrorists standing over a nation saying "we can
kill you" if we choose. I refuse to take part in the terrorist
mentality that says kill 5,000 of ours and we will kill 50,000 of yours.
Evidently, I'm more forward thinking than the mob in here - because I
can see how the terrorists keep score -- for every ONE of them, they
think they owe us TWO or more. I can look forward and see the result of
being bullies. Evidently that process eludes the leaders of the USA
(except, possibly, Colin Powell) and their supporters in this newsgroup.
Chris Morton
>
>
>
>Stupendous Man wrote:
>>
>> Scott, I am shocked that someone who has “read, learned about
>> and taught” history doesn’t know that there were widespread
>> peace movements in the 1920s and 1930s.
>
>I made the point that German pacifists were among the first
>Hitler put in concentration camps.
And that's certainly a clear indication of the value of unilateral pacifism.
Hitler dealt with pacifism by making the pacifists go away.
Pacifists are like King Canute raging at the sea, and just as ineffective
against militant anti-pacifists.
>> They only took root in
>> liberal democracies, and while Germany had one, too, it was
>> eliminated along with all other resistance to Nazi power in the
>> early 1930s.
>
>Exactly my point.
Only if your point is that pacifism is irrelevant in states that promote war.
Those states need only make the pacifists go away.
>> Untrue. An atomic bomb plus the V2 rocket makes them supreme
>> over all other powers. Once America entered WWII German
>> strategists started working on ways to attack America. They
>> even managed to perform a successful recon flight to New York
>> and back from occupied France. Their third generation missile
>> was a true ICBM.
>
>Your imagination is running wild, but the facts are that
It's not his imagination at all. Those are all documented facts. I have
references to all of them in my possession.
If you can disprove what he said, do so. Otherwise admit that your denial is
simply untrue.
>Germany's goal was Europe and its capacity was stretched to the
>max in even trying to achieve that goal. The idea that Germany
>would or could conquer the world is absurd.
It's only "absurd" because it utterly and absolutely destroys your sham of an
argument. Hitler would NEVER have allowed any meaningful competing centers of
power to exist. It just wasn't in him, and we both know it.
>> On the contrary, the Final Solution was decided upon in May,
>> 1942. Long before defeats at Stalingrad, Leningrad and El
>> Alemain made it clear they were no longer in control of their
>> own destiny.
>
>That does not deny my point. I have no doubt that leaders would
>want to plan this even if Germany was not at war. The
>willingness of people to either participate or turn the way other
>way rather than resist would not have existed absent war, and
>such resistance became virtually nil as it became clear the Reich
>was losing.
That's utter nonsense. There was scant resistance to German anti-semitism
before the war. And what there was was almost totally ineffective. You're
starting (inadvertently, I hope) to sound like George Hardy.
>> Even before then Waffen SS units fought alongside the Wermacht
>> and were responsible for liquidating “undesirables” in occupied
>> countries.
>
>True.
And according to PLAN, not as ad hoc behavior, although I will quibble with the
identity of the primary actors. "Liquidation" was the primary responsibilty of
the Einsatzgruppen, albeit with considerable assistance from the Waffen SS.
>> There has never been a single peace movement that has succeeded
>> against a totalitarian regime without the help of a military
>> movement or ally.
>
>So? There has never been a peace movement that has been more
>than a small group of people speaking out against violence.
And those in dictatorships have been singularly ineffective... or nonexistant.
>German non-violent resistance to French occupation of the
>Rheinland and German industrial centers actually hurt the French
>and helped force them to retreat. But military reactions to evil
No, the Wehrmacht forced them to retreat. Without German reoccupation by force,
the status quo would have obtained.
>regimes has not created a world absent those regimes, or a world
>absent violence and hate.
And pacifism HAS?
Your criteria are biased, and obviously so.
I claim only that self defense deals with specific instances, and possibly
deters future action. Pacifism only provides stationary targets to those who
like to kill.
>> Face it, people who kill innocents are not likely to be swayed
>> by someone holding a “give peace a chance” sign.
>
>Face it, that is not what I'm talking about. Non-violent
Face it, you don't have anything else more substantive to offer.
>resistance is active, not just holding a sign. And it will never
>be effective if most of the world is thinking in terms of hate
>and revenge, or if they get caught up in the logic of war. But
Then you just admitted it will NEVER work. It's a joke, a cruel joke on those
conned into believing it.
>each of us has to act in accordance with our own beliefs and
>principles, and if that means you want to take a gun and resist
>with violence, go ahead. Others might not believe that those
>means are moral -- some might look at the morality of the means
Some might not believe that continued existence in the face of those who would
cause you to cease to exist is moral. They have the right to believe that way.
I have the right to hold them up to ridicule, just as I have the right to hold
creationists up to ridicule.
>as the issue, not an ends justifies the means approach. But
The problem is that the ends never matter for you, merely the alleged morality
of the means. In almost every instance, you've preferred the most ghastly
outcomes to better ones achieved by allegedly "immoral" means.
>perhaps we can agree on one thing: resistance is required. Be it
>violent or non-violent, resistance to oppression and tyranny is
>better than collaboration and turning away and doing nothing.
In the example of a Hitler or Stalin... or especially a Bin Laden, non-violent
resistance isn't resistance at all. It's just acquiescence wrapped in empty
platitudes.
Jeffrey Davis
Chris Morton wrote:
> In article <3BADCBBC...@worldnet.att.net>, "Scott says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Stupendous Man wrote:
> >>
> >> Scott, I am shocked that someone who has “read, learned about
> >> and taught” history doesn’t know that there were widespread
> >> peace movements in the 1920s and 1930s.
> >
> >I made the point that German pacifists were among the first
> >Hitler put in concentration camps.
>
> And that's certainly a clear indication of the value of unilateral pacifism.
> Hitler dealt with pacifism by making the pacifists go away.
I once read this. Before America entered the war, an American Quaker had a meeting
with Hitler. He told him, "Thou art not a kind man."
(I've been trying to find a cite for that for years. Simply being a pacifist does
not mean that one is a coward.)
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Robert Lee wrote:
>>
>> Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote...
>>
>> >> So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
>> >> or fine people for stealing money...?
>> >
>> > Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
>> > in there and shoot them down.
>>
>> So, essentially, "an eye for an eye" breaks down for you as soon as the
>> rubber meets the road and it really means "an eye for an eye."
>>
>> How convenient.
>
>An interesting bit by a Jewish pacifist philosopher about the
>"eye for an eye" issue. He's quoted by a guy named Matthew:
>
>"You have heard that it was said 'an eye for an eye and a tooth
>for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil.
>But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the
>other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let
>him take your cloak as well..."
>
>Personally, I find Jesus' pacifism too extreme,...
...which, of course, is why you bring it around in a moment like
this, Reverend.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Billy Beck
Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> >Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> >> >You know, Scott I think there is a simpler analogy...........
>> >> >
>> >> >When a small child begins to express their independence by striking
>> >> >others, the absolute wrong lesson is "don't <whack> hit <whack> him
>> >> ><whack> again <whack>!"
>> >> >
>> >> >Using violence to teach non-violence is counter productive (not to
>> >> >mention just plain stupid).
>> >>
>> >> So then similarly, you can't imprison people for false imprisonment,
>> >> or fine people for stealing money...?
>> >
>> >Sure you do - the punishment fits the crime. But what you don't do is go
>> >in there and shoot them down. A civilized society takes the accused to
>> >court, tries them before a jury of their peers, and practices JUSTICE.
>> >To do otherwise is to BECOME an Osama bin Laden.
>> >
>> >Do you get it now?
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> You people think this is a college lecture. You think it's about
>> "teaching lessons", and you hold out these "principles" of
>> non-violence, which I would be quite interested to see in action
>> against a homicidal maniac or, perhaps in your own case, Roxanne, a
>> rapist.
>
>Been there, done that a$$hole. And guess what? I'm alive - no thanks
>to that piece of paper I had from a court telling the man holding the
>gun to my head to stay away.
Jeez, I guess you would have done better to take the matter into
your own immediately-responsible hands and get the drop on him with a
9mm instead waving your government's "protection" at him, huh? Sorry
to hear it.
>So, unless you speak from experience, I suggest you have nothing
>worthwile to add here.
I don't need to take a bite of a shit-sandwich to know what it's
going to taste like, baby.
>I wanted revenge that day, and for many days after. But, revenge never
>came, I walked away, I improved my life and the lives of my children
>without the bully. But you tell me, what would it have accomplished if
>we *both* had guns that day and I killed *him* traumatizing 3 small
>children in the process??????????
Oh, as if they weren't traumatized in the event as it went?
<shrug> I guess that's up to you, but here's a fact for you: the
terrorists are *still* out there and they're not going to stop until
someone chops their fucking heads off. So, you can try to couch it in
terms of "revenge" if you want to, but grown-ups know the facts.
Chris Morton
>
>
>
>Chris Morton wrote:
>
>> In article <3BADCBBC...@worldnet.att.net>, "Scott says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Stupendous Man wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Scott, I am shocked that someone who has “read, learned about
>> >> and taught” history doesn’t know that there were widespread
>> >> peace movements in the 1920s and 1930s.
>> >
>> >I made the point that German pacifists were among the first
>> >Hitler put in concentration camps.
>>
>> And that's certainly a clear indication of the value of unilateral pacifism.
>> Hitler dealt with pacifism by making the pacifists go away.
>
>I once read this. Before America entered the war, an American Quaker had a
>meeting
>with Hitler. He told him, "Thou art not a kind man."
And that did exactly... what???
>(I've been trying to find a cite for that for years. Simply being a pacifist
>does
>not mean that one is a coward.)
I never claim that all so-called pacifists are cowards, although many
self-described "pacifists" are nothing else but cowards.
No, my argument here is that against people like Hitler, Stalin, and Osama Bin
Laden, pacifists are impotent and irrelevant.
The brave pacifist has nothing to offer except his blood, and that's EXACTLY
what a Hitler wants. Pacifists only validate the belief of a Hitler that his
opponents are weak livestock, easily slaughtered for convenience and sheer
pleasure.
Marilyn Welch
for the suffering they are inflicting on humanity.
I would agree with you if you would replace the word "America"
in your essay (in most places) with "the world."
How many times do Americans need to be told that this was an attack
against civilization? that many foreign nationals were killed in
the WTC outnumbering the Americans. Yes, the attacks were carried out on
American soil and this gives rise to great chauvinism.
The Taleban don't want to punish only America. When they blew up American
embassies most of the people killed were Africans. They would destroy us
all.
Paraphrased from Roosevelt's Four Freedoms:
Freedom of Speech for all the world
Freedom of Religion for all the world
Freedom from Want for all the world
Freedom from Fear for all the world
I'm working on a new definition of RELIGION and it won't include
the Taleban's psychosis or Fallwell's intolerance.
Marilyn
Canada
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Gandalf Grey wrote:
> I hear you, Scott.
>
> I have a deep appreciation for the peace movement and I've been a part of it
> in the past, but I don't think America can follow that road this time. I'm
> not in favor of turning the Middle East into a parking lot as some of the
> trigger-happy usuals in the group, but I am in favor of a long term armed
> pro-active commitment to combating terrorism so long as that commitment goes
> hand in hand with a reassesment of America's past role in promoting
> terrorism in the third world. We are not blameless in this mess by any
> means, but that kind of guilt trip can't keep us from reacting with as much
> force as is necessary to what I consider the pre-eminent threat of this
> century.
>
> (snipped)
Scott D. Erb
Chris Morton wrote:
>
> >My position is the same as it has always been: non-violent
> >resistance by any effective means at ones' disposal, with a
> >willingness to die rather than collaborate and acquiesce.
>
> Then you would still allow aggressors to win through inaction on your part.
Since I specifically oppose inaction, your statement is wrong.
Scott D. Erb
Chris Morton wrote:
> >I made the point that German pacifists were among the first
> >Hitler put in concentration camps.
>
> And that's certainly a clear indication of the value of unilateral pacifism.
> Hitler dealt with pacifism by making the pacifists go away.
Pacifists and people opposing the use of violence are planting
the seed, an idea that hopefully will grow and make it impossible
for the likes of Hitler to get a nation to follow him.
> Pacifists are like King Canute raging at the sea, and just as ineffective
> against militant anti-pacifists.
Funny how some pacifists like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King,
Buddha, etc., have had some of the biggest impacts on history as
anyone. I'm not saying pacifism (in my case minimal force
pacifism and active resistance with nonlethal force) will work to
stop all bad guys. But then again, the military doesn't work all
the time either. Ultimately, using the military to counter
aggression just continues a cycle which has violence and
aggression as the only way to deal with the world. Sometime,
that will have to be broken, and that will only be, in my
opinion, as more people reject a violent reaction. That's still
generations away at best, I suspect.
I find your knowledge of German history to be uninformed, but
it's besides the point on this issue so I'll just stop here.
Scott D. Erb
Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> I once read this. Before America entered the war, an American Quaker had a meeting
> with Hitler. He told him, "Thou art not a kind man."
>
> (I've been trying to find a cite for that for years. Simply being a pacifist does
> not mean that one is a coward.)
I tried to explain in my post that it is a principled position
which is contrary to that of most people now a days, and all I
asked is that people recognize the principle and respect that it
is not merely naive or cowardly. Unfortunately, most people
aren't dealing with the position as it was stated and just either
responding by insult or stating the obvious fact that a
non-violent reaction won't always stop bad guys. The latter is a
legitimate point and strongly supports positions of those like
Gandalf that a military response is necessary. It does not
disprove the pacifist position, however. Hopefully each side can
try to understand and respect the other side, even if they
disagree. We each oppose collaboration and a refusal to resist
evil.
Martin McPhillips
That's right, Scott, you've got all your bases covered.
You can be a pacifist with one hand, and "oppose inaction" with
the other, just as you deplore the evil of centralized government
while being a giddy cheerleader for the European superstate.
You're truly a man for all seasons. By holding every position
simultaneously -- at least a little bit -- you can be a pro-market
Marxist, an anti-statist socialist, and a militaristic pacifist.
harrison numbugger
tell that to Jesus, King and Ghndhi
"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is
mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the
ingenuity of man."
Robert Lee
> I wanted revenge that day, and for many days after. But, revenge never
> came, I walked away, I improved my life and the lives of my children
> without the bully. But you tell me, what would it have accomplished if
> we *both* had guns that day and I killed *him* traumatizing 3 small
> children in the process??????????
Sounds like your kids were already traumatized. An old aquaintance of mine,
not politically anywhere near me, in fact all the way at the other end of
the spectrum, wrote an op/ed piece once in an "alternative" paper calling
for women to carry guns that got him nothing but shit.
I admired the hell out of him for it.
His basic argument, against the "trauma" argument was: "Which do you think
you'll really get over faster--the trauma of killing somebody else, or the
trauma of being raped? Even if you think they'd be about the same, wouldn't
you rather have the former than the latter?"
--Robert
--
Salt, sweat, sugar on the asphalt
Our hearts littering the topsoil
Robert Lee
news:3BADCFEB...@worldnet.att.net:
>
> My position is the same as it has always been: non-violent
> resistance by any effective means at ones' disposal, with a
> willingness to die rather than collaborate and acquiesce.
Good. Die, then. I'd rather be alive.
Robert Lee
news:3BAE0D78...@nyc.rr.com:
> You're truly a man for all seasons. By holding every position
> simultaneously -- at least a little bit -- you can be a pro-market
> Marxist, an anti-statist socialist, and a militaristic pacifist.
>
In other words, a classic liberal.
Robert Lee
news:9oktq...@drn.newsguy.com:
>>I once read this. Before America entered the war, an American Quaker
>>had a meeting with Hitler. He told him, "Thou art not a kind man."
>
> And that did exactly... what???
Gave Hitler the boo-boo jeebies, I guess.
John T. Kennedy
<cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
So you are saying that you are not mentally and emotionally equipped
to act in your own best interest?
I can see how that's a problem for you but what does it have to do
with those of us who *are* equipped to act in our own best interest?
I should have a nanny because you need one?
>
>But, that kind of violence would have proved nothing. It would have
>simply made my children orphans, and put me in jail for "murder."
>
>So, you tell me, how is it right for a *country* to ignore it's own laws
>of justice, just because an angry mob says "do it!" when that same
>system of justice would convict me of a crime.
>
>This call for revenge makes this country as bad as Osama bin Laden; it
>shows the angry mob for what is it - a society of revenge; calling for a
>holy war just like the THEM.
-
John T. Kennedy III
No Treason - A Journal of Liberty
http://www.no-treason.com/
The Wild Shall Ever Wild Remain!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jtkennedy/itswhatitisnow.html
Robert Lee
> I tried to explain in my post that it is a principled position
> which is contrary to that of most people now a days
Uh, Scott, you're obviously a smart guy. Something as simple as "If you hit
me, I'll hit you back twice as hard" is a principle, the very thing you're
railing against, and you know that.Everybody has principles they live by,
and "principles" they just spout and don't really live by.
"Living" implies action. "Living" implies life. What you're proposing is
death--you may as well have suggested that we all take the route of the
Jews at Masada. Hey, they were principled, too...
Jeffrey Davis
Robert Lee wrote:
> Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote in
> news:9oktq...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
> >>I once read this. Before America entered the war, an American Quaker
> >>had a meeting with Hitler. He told him, "Thou art not a kind man."
> >
> > And that did exactly... what???
>
> Gave Hitler the boo-boo jeebies, I guess.
>
There's a un-resolvable conflict between the religious mind and the
secular mind. It needn't be Muslim v. Capitalist; Fundamentalist Christian
vs Secular Humanist. Whatever. If one believes in the revealed word of God
then the wisdom of the world is going to be false. This is going to be a
problem for awhile.
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BADCF71...@worldnet.att.net...
Certainly.
Bin Laden and his followers
> are warped in their understanding of the world, but they aren't
> insane cowards, they believe they are at war, and they have a
> purpose in that war.
I agree. Absolutely they have a clear purpose. A lot of people I talk to
fear that our belief that bin Laden and his followers are "insane fanatics"
will warp and exaggerate our response unduly. I disagree with this point of
view. I don't see them as "fanatical," but I do see them as having a goal
that is non-negotiable by its very nature. When you're up against an enemy
whose goal is the destruction of the U.S., it really doesn't matter whether
they're fanatical or whether they're Evil. The whole point shifts in such a
case from goals motivated by greed or nationalism to goals based on basic
survival.
bin Laden is not insane, he just wants us dead and gone. To me that makes
him far more dangerous than any insane opponent. Another way of looking at
it is this, whether bin Laden is insane or not, he's completely unwilling to
negotiate. That makes him operationally insane. As I noted before,
non-violent policies all come down to negotiation and communication. This
won't work in bin Laden's case. We have nothing for which he'd negotiate
and he's not interested in communication. Islamic fundamentalist have made
it clear that their religion DEMANDS that they lie to us. Any communication
we have with bin Laden will not be honest communication and he's statements
have made it clear that there's no basis for negotiation even if we could
rely on honesty.
> More than that, most in the mideast or even
> Afghanistan do not have the kind of perspective as the group
> around Bin Laden. The "jihad" types hope the US responds in a
> military manner because they think that's the only way to ignite
> a jihad to get the rest on their side (they'll be engaging in
> similar attempts to paint the US as evil and wanting to eliminate
> Islam).
I agree. bin Laden and the fringe Islamic Jihad do not represent the whole
of Islam nor the majority of individuals in the Middle East, but the fact
that the Jihad "hopes we'll respond militarily" means nothing operationally.
I can't stress enough that this is not a typical enemy with a typical
war-waging philosophy. The fact is that the terrorists will keep up their
activities whether we respond or not. This is not a simple battle in which
one general says to the other: "If you keep bombing me, I'm going to keep
bombing you." This is a war in which the enemy has said "I'm not going to
stop until you're dead."
Today, I read some reports that Islamic radicals are going into hotels where
Americans are staying and shops run by Americans, saying "If your country
goes against Afghanistan, we'll be back." This is pure extortion and pure
extortion is part of what bin Laden is all about. He says to America "I'm
going to stab you and stab you until you're dead and if you try to fight
back I"m just going to stab you harder." What response is justified under
such circumstances? My belief is that under those circumstances self
defense in a direct, proactive, strong fashion is the ONLY justifiable
response to such a situation.
I fear that the only helpful analogy in this situation is the story of the
hijacked airliners that began this war. Hijacking "philosophy" is
classically based on negotiation and appeasement. In the events that
occurred on September 11, we see both the results of that philosophy and the
results of utter resistance. The flights that responded according to the
prevailing view were the flights that smashed into the WTC. Yet those
passengers that resisted without hope of saving their own lives foiled the
plans of the hijackers. These are not people who can be appeased. Only
resistance has a prayer of success.
In this I am strongly reminded of the fact that retrospectively historians
agree that if the world had simply read and believed what Hitler wrote in
*Mein Kampf* WWII might not have gone as far and as long as it did, for
Hitler made his goals quite plain long before his lies and diplomatic
maneuvers began to obscure what he was really up to.
bin Laden has made his goals concerning the United States abundantly clear
in two different 'announcements' he made concerning the war on the West.
He's made it clear that he does NOT just want us out of the Middle East,
he's made it clear that American citizens are legitimate targets, he's made
it clear that his goal is the destruction of the United States. These kinds
of goals are not negotiable. Only a nation that has lossed all will to
survive will come to such an enemy in the spirit of negotiation and say
"okay, you want us dead. Just what do you mean by "dead?" How dead do you
want us?" The survival of a nation isn't negotiable. By couching his war
against the U.S. in such terms, bin Laden has made it quite impossible to
deal with him in any other way but by his utter destruction.
>
> That being said, I certainly understand your perspective too, and
> agree completely we need dialogue and debate about such issues in
> order to avoid simply rushing headlong into an action without
> consideration of alternatives and various other perspectives --
> that kind of debate is why democracy works. I *know* that a
> military action will be taken, I hope that it is rational,
> limited, and effective, and I hope it has minimal loss of life on
> either side. I believe that there is danger that this will
> intensify emotions on both sides and make the conflict deeper.
I agree with you so much. There is every reason to believe that this war
could turn into the Third World War and there's no question but that this is
what bin Laden and his followers as well as the other fringe Islamic groups
want. It will be the greatest test our nation has ever undergone to keep
that from happening.
This is the hour of our doom, Scott. All our years as a nation has brought
us to a position in which this doom is thrust upon us. If we do nothing, if
we turn our backs, the world will be plunged into an age of extortion and
terror. If we fight back against that terror the world may well be plunged
into a war of such dimensions that there will be little left for the
"winners" to gloat over. How we conduct ourselves minute by minute and day
by day will be the test of our wisdom as a nation and a people. How we
conduct ourselves may well decide the fate of the world.
> My hope is that if people respect and consider the arguments of
> the peace movement they will be realistic in considering that
> danger and it will help lead to choices less likely to create a
> catastrophe. And I hope that regardless of how people react to
> this crisis, they at least consider the possibility that King and
> Gandhi had a point, even if they don't believe it applies in
> every case.
This is why I said that I believe the peace movement is important right here
and right now. If people do not see alternatives, if they do not have other
voices urging restraint, they tend to go too far too fast and become wholly
engulfed by the passions of war. This will be the most difficult war the
United States has ever waged. We'll need voices raised in principled
objection in order to keep us steady.
If we, as a nation, turn to the smothering of those who dissent with either
laws or public ridicule we will have utterly failed in this war before we
even begin. Every move we make against those who object and dissent will be
a small victory for our enemies. Every move we make to squash public
discussion and open argument will be a small step we take toward resembling
the enemy. This is not just a war against a man or a group of men, it is a
war we wage against what is worst in mankind. We must be careful always to
guard against what is worst in ourselves.
Roderic Fabian
scot...@worldnet.att.net expounds...
> As someone who has studied, understands, and even teaches
> appreciate the strong and rational belief of most Americans that
> military force is necessary. I do not share the belief, being
> part of what is loosely known as the "peace movement."
Very nice essay, but I don't agree. Nonviolence only works in certain
circumscribed situations. Gandhi, for example, conducted his protests
under British rule, and being an enlightened Western culture, the British
treated him in a relatively moral fashion. If Gandhi had tried this
under the Taliban, he'd be as dead as a doornail not long after he
started his protests. The same thing goes for Martin Luther King and
other non-violet types, including you, if you ever fell under the control
of the Taliban. In fact, we have seen what happens to non-violent people
who protest the Taliban in the mildest way; they are in prison waiting
their execution unless they are Afghani nationals, in which case they are
already dead.
The peace movement is in favor of treating the bombing of the World Trade
Center and other acts as crimes, and insists that the model to pursue
should be that of an international justice system rather than war. But
that is the wrong way to use the metaphor of a world justice system.
Before criminals can be brought into the putative international court of
law the criminal must be arrested and rendered harmless, and that has not
been done yet. Until this happens the forces of international law are
justified in using whatever reasonable force is necessary to defeat them,
just as the police will send for the SWAT team if a criminal starts a
fire-fight and takes hostages. As the police know, it will not do simply
to leave criminals to themselves and hope that they don't do anything
else bad. They must be rooted out by force if necessary. In fact, in
this case the criminals have barricaded themselves and are bristling with
armaments and have made it clear that they will not stop. And, in fact,
they have promised to do more of the sort of handiwork they did on Sept.
11th in the future. In the meantime, they are treating their own people
and alien nationals in their country in the most cruel and barbaric
fashion.
Everyone knows that American foreign policy has not always been just or
fair, but there is no way that the bombing of the trade center and the
Pentagon represents a moral reprisal. It is moral idiocy to validate the
tradeoff posited by the mass murderers. To suggest that there is some
sort of moral equivalency operating here is obscene garbage. The Taliban
are religious fascists who did what they did because they hate the West
and will always hate the West because of those things that you defend
about the West: equality of women, secularism, science, religious
tolerance. It is what they have said.
Itold...@rightwing.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
>In article <3badb3b0....@news.enetis.net>, Itold...@rightwing.com
>says...
>>
>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:21:29 -0400, Christopher Morton
>><chr...@ameritech.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>>>Scott's ultimate goal is a degree of moral paralysis engendered by
>>>false arguments, sufficient to stifle all action.
>>
>>"false argument"?
>>
>>Like your 2nd amendment arguments, fuckwit?
>
>The Attorney General agrees with ME.
So a racist, homophobic, antigovernment bigot is one of your
chosen "friends"?
>Who agrees with you? Bin Laden?
the USSC, Mortonloon
And as far as I know, that, not your racist friend, is the prevailing
doctrine in America.
>After all, that's what you're in favor of, isn't it? Unlimited, unchallenged
>government power? Kind of like the Taliban, huh?
Typical right wing fuckwit is what you are mortonloon
The "unlimited, unchallenged 'government power'" of STATE and LOCAL
government is what what YOU'RE in favor of. The same "unchallenged"
power that gave us segregation, Jim Crow, forced sterilizations,
disenfranchisement, civil rights abuses, lynchings, beatings,
intimidation and other dispicable things.
The federal government has FORCED your racist, homophobic friends
(along with corporate greed) to comply for the good of ALL
Itold...@rightwing.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
>I once had a conversation with one of these guys about the uses of power.
We're used to your "conversations" , you halfwitted moron
When we stop laughing at you, it's still the same pile of shit we've
always seen.
Robert Lee
news:3BAE21C8...@leftofcenter.net:
> tell that to Jesus,
Oh, you mean the "pacifist" who said he didn't come to bring peace, but a
sword, and promised to set whole families against each other?
> King and Ghndhi
Rarified situations, one in the West, one relying on the political and
journalistic establishments in the West, which were mostly sympathetic.
Robert Lee
news:MPG.1617ecf93...@news.houston.sbcglobal.net:
> If Gandhi had tried this
> under the Taliban
Or *any* of the European colonial nations...
VApoll'uan
Robert Lee <rober...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns912578E605334ro...@64.152.100.101...
> harrison numbugger <hnumb...@leftofcenter.net> wrote in
> news:3BAE21C8...@leftofcenter.net:
>
> > tell that to Jesus,
>
> Oh, you mean the "pacifist" who said he didn't come to bring peace, but a
> sword, and promised to set whole families against each other?
>
You must be confused.
That statement is exactly what he meant, as the ugliness that can occur
within a family can occur on the larger scale.
Pacifist?
Then...but not this time.
Robert Lee
> But
> that is the wrong way to use the metaphor of a world justice system.
Let's be frank: we don't really *have* a "world justice system."
And I don't want one. Jesus...can you imagine the juries on that? OJ trial
after OJ trial after OJ trial after OJ trial...
johnz~
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
(snip
Hmmm...
Well, I am forced to admit...
>
> bin Laden has made his goals concerning the United States abundantly clear
> in two different 'announcements' he made concerning the war on the West.
> He's made it clear that he does NOT just want us out of the Middle East,
> he's made it clear that American citizens are legitimate targets, he's made
> it clear that his goal is the destruction of the United States. These kinds
> of goals are not negotiable. Only a nation that has lossed all will to
> survive will come to such an enemy in the spirit of negotiation and say
> "okay, you want us dead. Just what do you mean by "dead?" How dead do you
> want us?" The survival of a nation isn't negotiable. By couching his war
> against the U.S. in such terms, bin Laden has made it quite impossible to
> deal with him in any other way but by his utter destruction.
that you're right.
JS
(snip)
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
Billy Beck
Robert Lee <rober...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>> My position is the same as it has always been: non-violent
>> resistance by any effective means at ones' disposal, with a
>> willingness to die rather than collaborate and acquiesce.
>
>Good. Die, then.
No kiddin'. Notice how he surrenders in the fight before it's
even begun.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>But then again, the military doesn't work all
>the time either. Ultimately, using the military to counter
>aggression just continues a cycle which has violence and
>aggression as the only way to deal with the world.
You write like an idiot, Professorboy. Within the span of two
sentences, you hold out at least the *prospect* of the success of
military action with the implication of the qualifier "all the time",
and then, in the next sentence, wipe out your own implication with the
word "ultimately" followed by a very strange general assertion that
fails to deal with the exceptional example of one of the most violent
cultures in the 20th century put down by an event of signal violence:
Japan in the wake of Hiroshima.
You write like an idiot.
Robert Lee
news:9olb0o$5u2$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net:
> That statement is exactly what he meant, as the ugliness that can occur
> within a family can occur on the larger scale.
Matthew 10: 34-37
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not
come to bring peace, but a sword.
"For I have come to turn `a man against his father, a daughter against her
mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will
be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother
more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more
than me is not worthy of me."
That's not a parable about family ugliness on a micro level to teach about
human ugliness on a macro level. That's a blatant call to blind submission
and hatred of one's own family in a leader's service...the funny thing is
that Christian anti-cult ministries, just like any other smart anti-
cultists, list both these demands as definite signs that you're in a toxic
religious situation.
(Except, naturally, if you live in Palestine two thousand years ago.)
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Stupendous Man wrote:
>
> On 2001-09-22 9:18 PM, in article 3BAD395D...@worldnet.att.net,
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Jim Ferguson wrote:
> >>
> >> Very eloquent and forcibly stated. The reason I do not agree with
> you is
> >> that we would all be slaves to Nazi Germany and hundreds of
> millions would
> >> have perished in the gas ovens if that philosophy had been
> practiced in the
> >> '40's.
> >
> > Perhaps if the philosophy had been practiced in the twenties and
> > thirties Nazi Germany would never have come into being. Also to
>
> Scott, I am shocked that someone who has “read, learned about and
> taught” history doesn’t know that there were widespread peace
> movements in the 1920s and 1930s. They only took root in liberal
> democracies, and while Germany had one, too, it was eliminated along
> with all other resistance to Nazi power in the early 1930s.
One of the amazing "lost stories" of World War II, was that late in the
war, a group of German students at the University of Berlin actually
started staging peaceful anti-war protests. They handed out leaflets
and so on, calling on their Nazi government to sue for peace.
Needless to say, the Nazis dealt with this anti-war protest in their
usual style.
(cf. "Adolf Hitler," by John Toland)
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: s...@mitre.org
Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the opinions expressed
herein
are not those of my employer.
Chris Morton
says...
>
>On 23 Sep 2001 03:27:32 -0700, Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com>
>wrote like a right wing nut;
>>In article <3badb3b0....@news.enetis.net>, Itold...@rightwing.com
>>says...
>>>
>>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:21:29 -0400, Christopher Morton
>>><chr...@ameritech.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>>
>>>>Scott's ultimate goal is a degree of moral paralysis engendered by
>>>>false arguments, sufficient to stifle all action.
>>>
>>>"false argument"?
>>>
>>>Like your 2nd amendment arguments, fuckwit?
>>
>>The Attorney General agrees with ME.
>
>So a racist, homophobic, antigovernment bigot is one of your
>chosen "friends"?
Gee, and I thought the government was always right.
>>Who agrees with you? Bin Laden?
>
>the USSC, Mortonloon
They just haven't bothered to say it... ever.
>And as far as I know, that, not your racist friend, is the prevailing
>doctrine in America.
They're doctrine is that it's an individual right.
Hurts, don't it?
>>After all, that's what you're in favor of, isn't it? Unlimited, unchallenged
>>government power? Kind of like the Taliban, huh?
>
>Typical right wing fuckwit is what you are mortonloon
I'm sure you'll get around to "nigger" eventually, Lee.
>The "unlimited, unchallenged 'government power'" of STATE and LOCAL
>government is what what YOU'RE in favor of. The same "unchallenged"
>power that gave us segregation, Jim Crow, forced sterilizations,
>disenfranchisement, civil rights abuses, lynchings, beatings,
>intimidation and other dispicable things.
One of us thinks that people should be able to defend themselves from
lynchings... most of which occurred with the connivance or acquiescence of the
police. And it ain't you.
>The federal government has FORCED your racist, homophobic friends
>(along with corporate greed) to comply for the good of ALL
When did they agree to do that? At the Good Old Boy's Roundup?
You sheet wearing thugs are SO easy!
Chris Morton
says...
>
>In article <3BAD06C2...@worldnet.att.net>,
>scot...@worldnet.att.net expounds...
>> As someone who has studied, understands, and even teaches
>> strategies of war, deterrence, and the use of military, I fully
>> appreciate the strong and rational belief of most Americans that
>> military force is necessary. I do not share the belief, being
>> part of what is loosely known as the "peace movement."
>
>Very nice essay, but I don't agree. Nonviolence only works in certain
>circumscribed situations. Gandhi, for example, conducted his protests
>under British rule, and being an enlightened Western culture, the British
>treated him in a relatively moral fashion. If Gandhi had tried this
If Gandhi had even just had the French to deal with, his neck would have felt
the kiss of the guillotine.
Scott D. Erb
Robert Lee wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:3BAE0E40...@worldnet.att.net:
>
> > I tried to explain in my post that it is a principled position
> > which is contrary to that of most people now a days
>
> Uh, Scott, you're obviously a smart guy. Something as simple as "If you hit
> me, I'll hit you back twice as hard" is a principle, the very thing you're
> railing against, and you know that.Everybody has principles they live by,
> and "principles" they just spout and don't really live by.
I'm arguing for self and other defense (direct) as legitimate
through minimum non-lethal force to end the situation. I don't
think that violence for retribution or to respond to violence
beyond that is ultimately effective as it continues a logic of
violence as the best means to an end. In the case of situations
like this, or like Kosovo or Kuwait, I think there are creative
alternates that might not satisfy a desire for quick revenge, but
would be more effective and set the ground work for building a
more peaceful 21st century. The wrong path could risk a war of
civilizations.
I'm realistic enough to know my preferred path won't be chosen.
I'll be satifisfied if the US chooses a limited and effective
response focused on terrorist cells and not on targets that will
mean the deaths of innocents. I'll be satisfied if this is
combined with positive moves to build better relations with
Islamic countries. That may not be my first choice, but it does
have a better chance of success than a massive response, and a
better chance of avoiding turning this into a growing long term
conflict.
> "Living" implies action. "Living" implies life. What you're proposing is
> death--you may as well have suggested that we all take the route of the
> Jews at Masada. Hey, they were principled, too...
People choose the route they take, but I do don't think the route
I propose is death by any means -- indeed, quite the opposite. I
understand that there is no reason for you to simply adapt my
view point. If you at least try to understand it, and understand
that peace protesters are (mostly) people with high ideals who do
not want to simply surrender and who do believe that acting on
their principles would ultimately lead to a better world, that is
enough. And, again, I think action -- non-lethal action to
resist oppression and tyranny, and minimal force action in direct
self-defense and other-defense is a rational approach.
Robert Lee
news:3bae3086...@news.mindspring.com:
> From: wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
> Newsgroups:
> alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.lib
> eralism,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Peace
> Movement: Motives and Principles
>
>
> Robert Lee <rober...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>
>>> My position is the same as it has always been: non-violent
>>> resistance by any effective means at ones' disposal, with a
>>> willingness to die rather than collaborate and acquiesce.
>>
>>Good. Die, then.
>
> No kiddin'. Notice how he surrenders in the fight before it's
> even begun.
When, exactly, did suicide become the most "civilized" response to
agression? That idea doesn't even make any goddamned sense, if you have any
idea what "civilized" means. I mean, listen to this guy: "willingness to
die rather than collaborate and acquiesce." Doesn't that sound familiar?
Note, also, the complete hijacking of the words "collaboration" and
"aquiescence." In these people's minds, to fight is to surrender and to
resist is to collaborate*. Jesus Christ...
--Robert
*I mean, it's understandable, given that they've changed the basic
grounding from "survival is preeminent" to "nonviolence (not "peace,"
because if you think a crowd of innocents being mowed down because of
principles is "peace," you're an ape) is preeminent," while maintaining the
terminology of the previous philosophical model. Old propagandist's trick:
everybody thinks you're talking about the same thing, because on the
surface it all sounds the same, when you've actually moved the public
conversation off into some alien territory.
Steven D. Litvintchouk
>
> Oh really? Then I must assume you agree with Milosevic that the UN
> tribunal is not a valid court? And the Nuremberg trials as well?
The Nuremberg trials went into effect only AFTER the Allies conquered
Germany militarily, and Hitler blew his brains out.
The UN tribunal of Milosevic brought justice, but only AFTER the U.S.
(under President Clinton) bombed Serbia for 78 days straight.
As you can see, the justice occurred only as the result of U.S. military
action in both cases.
Not once has naked aggression been stopped in a court of law by peaceful
means alone.
Read the pathetic history of the League of Nations' attempts to halt
Japanese aggression in Manchuria in 1931, and Italian aggression in
Ethiopia in 1936.
> > The world is not a "family."
> > It's largely an anarchy of petty dictatorships who enjoy making war.
>
> Like your boy Bush who needed a war to boost a slumping economy you
> mean?
He's not "my boy," he's OUR President. Both of us. So long as you call
yourself an American citizen, that's the way it is. If terrorists
attack again, you can choose to go it alone, and not wish for protection
from "the boy." But Bush will try to save you and your family anyway
from terrorism, even though you won't give him any credit or
appreciation for it. That's the difference between Bush, and YOU.
As for your pseudo-economic theory, economically we are in far worse
shape now than before 9-11. The consumer sector is reeling, due to
collapsing tourism and travel.
> > Since when did you become a pacifist?
>
> I'm not a pacifist..........I'm intelligent enough to see that violence
> begets violence.
That is an unsupported URBAN MYTH, that is not borne out by much of
history.
Violence only begets violence when neither side can be decisively
defeated, and when both sides are still alive and kicking.
Japan has never resorted to aggression since 1945. Neither has
Germany. That's because we beat them both decisively, and IMPOSED
peaceful, democratic governments and constitutions on both of them.
They never bothered us again.
You are over-generalizing from the "balance of power" claptrap of the
Cold War, in which neither the U.S. nor the U.S.S.R. ever went for each
other's throat decisively. So you ended up with a "tit-for-tat"
situation; we hit them, they hit us, we hit them, on and on.
Hitler has never attacked us since 1945. That's because he is DEAD, and
his Nazi Party broken up by FORCE.
That's the way to deal with Bin Laden and his whole organization too.
We don't want a "balance of power" with the terrorists, we want to
DESTROY all terrorists.
> I refuse to take part in the terrorist
> mentality that says kill 5,000 of ours and we will kill 50,000 of yours.
That isn't U.S. policy. Bush stated specifically that we want the
Taliban to hand over Bin Laden to us. He never once threatened to
terror-bomb the Afghan civilian population. Not once.
> Evidently, I'm more forward thinking than the mob in here -
That is highly debatable. So far you haven't impressed me with either
your logic, your evidence, your grasp of world affairs, your knowledge
of history, or even your moral code.
> because I
> can see how the terrorists keep score -- for every ONE of them, they
> think they owe us TWO or more.
Apparently you haven't bothered to read Bin Laden's own statements to
the world press (given over many years), to see just what his attitudes
are and what his preferred tactics are. I suggest you pick up the
latest issue of Time Magazine, which has a whole list of Bin Laden's
greatest talking-points, and see for yourself.
> I can look forward and see the result of
> being bullies. Evidently that process eludes the leaders of the USA
> (except, possibly, Colin Powell) and their supporters in this newsgroup.
Can you cite one shred of real evidence to back up anything you have
claimed? So far, you sound like someone who is falling into panic and
hysteria, due to your utter refusal to close ranks behind OUR
President. Psychologically, your insistence on psychologically "going
it alone" separate from "that boy Bush," is feeding on your panic and
hysteria, and vice versa, in a vicious cycle.
"If we do not hang together, we will most assuredly hang separately"
-- Benjamin Franklin
Chris Morton
>> The brave pacifist has nothing to offer except his blood, and that's EXACTLY
>> what a Hitler wants. Pacifists only validate the belief of a Hitler that his
>> opponents are weak livestock, easily slaughtered for convenience and sheer
>> pleasure.
>
>tell that to Jesus, King and Ghndhi
How?
They're all dead.
>"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is
>mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the
>ingenuity of man."
And who said that? Somebody who got his head blown off to no discernible end?
Unilateral pacifism is nothing more than a messy and convoluted method of mass
suicide.
If your own death is your goal, just go ahead and kill yourself. At least have
the decency to not try to con the gullible into thinking it actually MEANS
something.
Chris Morton
>
>Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>news:9oktq...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>>>I once read this. Before America entered the war, an American Quaker
>>>had a meeting with Hitler. He told him, "Thou art not a kind man."
>>
>> And that did exactly... what???
>
>Gave Hitler the boo-boo jeebies, I guess.
I suspect he laughed so hard, he wet himself... something I'm given to
understand he preferred to have other people do TO him....
Scott D. Erb
Roderic Fabian wrote:
>
> In article <3BAD06C2...@worldnet.att.net>,
> scot...@worldnet.att.net expounds...
> > As someone who has studied, understands, and even teaches
> > strategies of war, deterrence, and the use of military, I fully
> > appreciate the strong and rational belief of most Americans that
> > military force is necessary. I do not share the belief, being
> > part of what is loosely known as the "peace movement."
>
> Very nice essay, but I don't agree. Nonviolence only works in certain
> circumscribed situations. Gandhi, for example, conducted his protests
> under British rule, and being an enlightened Western culture, the British
> treated him in a relatively moral fashion. If Gandhi had tried this
> under the Taliban, he'd be as dead as a doornail not long after he
> started his protests.
Well, the Jewish pacifist philosopher Jesus did his acts against
the Roman Empire and guess what -- he failed, the Roman Empire
survived. And, even if the followers of Jesus 2000 years later
are often very confused about what he taught, his ideas have
lasted and impacted society greatly. Not bad for a pacifist
whose rag tag group was stopped and eliminated early on. Gandhi
and MLK give philosophical arguments, we all have to decide how
to respond in particular circumstances.
I'm not sure what would work or not work against the Taliban, but
the point is not about what would "work," but how best to
approach issues. In a world where violence is considered the
best way to achieve a political end, and security is defined in
terms of military power, you are more likely to have groups that
use violence. Gandhi's point was responding by using violence
back only continues that kind of cycle, setting up some other
major violent conflict down the line, regardless of who wins one
at a given time. The answer for Gandhi and King is to act on
principle and find different ways of responding, both as
individuals and as groups or nations.
>The same thing goes for Martin Luther King and
> other non-violet types, including you, if you ever fell under the control
> of the Taliban. In fact, we have seen what happens to non-violent people
> who protest the Taliban in the mildest way; they are in prison waiting
> their execution unless they are Afghani nationals, in which case they are
> already dead.
Individuals in many situations will suffer -- someone taking a
gun out to start killing members of the Taliban will suffer as
well, I don't think individual pacifists or individual
militarists will fare any better than the other against these
guys. For the US, the question is what kind of response is
ultimately better to create the kind of world we want and achieve
the goals we want to achieve. I suggest that a non-violent
response might actually do better. I recognize that choice won't
be made, and hope only that pointing out the potential problems
of too militarist of a response and potential disadvantages will
convince people that we have to be very careful and use a minimum
of force.
> The peace movement is in favor of treating the bombing of the World Trade
> Center and other acts as crimes, and insists that the model to pursue
> should be that of an international justice system rather than war. But
> that is the wrong way to use the metaphor of a world justice system.
But you have to know who the people are who did it, and you don't
want to be killing innocents just because the act is bad. It is
a crime. And perhaps treating it as such and working with other
states with more carrots than sticks might improve US security
and achieve policy goals much better than launching widespread
attacks. At the very least, we have to be careful and consider
all options.
> Before criminals can be brought into the putative international court of
> law the criminal must be arrested and rendered harmless, and that has not
> been done yet. Until this happens the forces of international law are
> justified in using whatever reasonable force is necessary to defeat them,
> just as the police will send for the SWAT team if a criminal starts a
> fire-fight and takes hostages. As the police know, it will not do simply
> to leave criminals to themselves and hope that they don't do anything
> else bad. They must be rooted out by force if necessary. In fact, in
> this case the criminals have barricaded themselves and are bristling with
> armaments and have made it clear that they will not stop. And, in fact,
> they have promised to do more of the sort of handiwork they did on Sept.
> 11th in the future. In the meantime, they are treating their own people
> and alien nationals in their country in the most cruel and barbaric
> fashion.
But who are the criminals? Israeli intelligence suspects Iraq
and Saddam Hussein are behind this. The Taliban's role is
uncertain to say the least. But even if we know for sure, we
still have to choose a response that does more than just give
emotional satisfaction, but doesn't create problems that are
worse than the one we're trying to stop, and which does enhance
US Security and work towards the ideals of our country.
> Everyone knows that American foreign policy has not always been just or
> fair, but there is no way that the bombing of the trade center and the
> Pentagon represents a moral reprisal. It is moral idiocy to validate the
> tradeoff posited by the mass murderers. To suggest that there is some
> sort of moral equivalency operating here is obscene garbage. The Taliban
> are religious fascists who did what they did because they hate the West
> and will always hate the West because of those things that you defend
> about the West: equality of women, secularism, science, religious
> tolerance. It is what they have said.
I don't know of any thoughtful person with nothing but
condemnation for the terrorist attacks. They cannot be justified
or rationalized by any reasonable argument, certainly not from
any kind of pacifist perspective. Knowing their motives helps us
determine how to respond more effectively, but the peace movement
should be focused on how to have an effective response that isn't
militarist, and that includes condemnation of terrorism and a
focus on trying to eliminate terrorism as a threat.
Robert Lee
news:3BAE375F...@mitre.org:
> One of the amazing "lost stories" of World War II, was that late in the
> war, a group of German students at the University of Berlin actually
> started staging peaceful anti-war protests. They handed out leaflets
> and so on, calling on their Nazi government to sue for peace.
>
> Needless to say, the Nazis dealt with this anti-war protest in their
> usual style.
>
> (cf. "Adolf Hitler," by John Toland)
Actually, they dealt with it in an unusual style, even for them: they put
the student leaders under fucking *guillotines.*
And so, the "White Rose" was over almost before it began. Beautiful, tragic
and ultimately pointless. What a waste.
--Robert
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Robert Lee wrote:
>
> Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:3BAD76C1...@earthlink.net:
>
> > Roxanne would have had us bring Admiral Yamamoto to TRIAL in The Hague,
>
> Which, naturally, would have taken years and years and required the blood
> of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans.
>
> But, hey, at least we'd have a trial, and no "collateral damage" on *their*
> side!
>
> Well, if the war hadn't ground to a stalemate, long before...
I've actually had discussions with some peace activists about World War
II and what they believe the U.S. should have done.
They, of course, denounce the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They also opposed the conventional-bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese
cities.
They recognize that a U.S. invasion of Japan would have killed many
Japanese, so they oppose that too.
So what would they have liked the U.S. to do? They think the U.S.
should have reached a "negotiated settlement" with Tokyo. (Which would,
of course, have left the militarists like Tojo in place. IMHO, a
militarized Japan controlled by the samurai code would have inevitably
developed nuclear weapons someday, and would have wreaked revenge on the
U.S.)
Scott D. Erb
turn the other cheek, love ones' enemy, to give when asked,
etc.? Perhaps. Perhaps he was a confused man. Perhaps the
people writing his words injected their own ideals. So you think
that Matthew 10 makes Matthew 5 invalid? Yet clearly Jesus did
not bring a sword. He died without resistance. Given the
teachings of Jesus, I suspect that he was refering to the fact
that following his spiritual other-worldly teachings (again, its
a little extreme for me, though I respect his spiritual wisdom)
will create dissent, and that following his ideals would mean
families would split.
Robert Lee
>
> So what would they have liked the U.S. to do? They think the U.S.
> should have reached a "negotiated settlement" with Tokyo. (Which would,
> of course, have left the militarists like Tojo in place. IMHO, a
> militarized Japan controlled by the samurai code would have inevitably
> developed nuclear weapons someday, and would have wreaked revenge on the
> U.S.)
Plus, we wouldn't have Godzilla movies and Iron Chef. Thank god for the
Enola Gay.