[CLUE-Talk] Sure its 'Not About Oil' was: Why Iraq? Why now?

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Jeffery Cann wrote:

> If we are going to debate pacifism and use WW2 as a means to do it, why then
> aren't we starting with the 1920s rather than 1939?

Probably because the question isn't "how can we predict the possibility
that someone might turn out to be Hitler, and use that as a way to
justify pacifism?" It is: How do you deal with a Hitler if they do
happen, using pacifism? The answer: You can't.

To use other scenarios -- how could we have won independence from the
British using pacifism? Would pacifism have served the Native Americans
any better as a response to settlers taking over their land?

In short -- how can one group of people or nation respond to aggression
by another group or nation using pacifism? Answer: not very well. Those
who do not practice pacifism will simply ride roughshod over groups who
do, and those groups will be consigned to the dustbin of history. And
good riddance. There are some things in this world that you have to be
prepared to fight for, and possibly kill for. Would it be nice if that
were not so? Certainly -- but you're not dealing in reality there.

> It's fine to day:  Well, pacifists cannot explain how to deal with a Hitler."
> My question:  Why didn't the world 'deal with Hitler' before he rose to
> power?  Surely, there were indications before he rose to power that he was
> not interested in peace nor serving his fellow mankind.  If people were more
> interested in serving fellow humans, would they have allowed such a man to
> rise to power?

Your question only avoids dealing with the obvious: Pacifism is not a
tenable real-world philosophy. It presumes that people can "deal" with
someone like Hitler by somehow identifying someone on the path to
becoming Hitler -- presumably so early that the only response necessary
is a non-violent one.

You point out the problem quite nicely -- people AREN'T, as a rule, all
that concerned with helping out their fellow humans. It's only when
someone becomes so monstrous that their crimes become impossible to
ignore that the majority raises its collective head and says "oh, we'd
better do something about that, then."

How could we have prevented Hitler's rise anyway? By not fighting World
War I? By intervening in the German political process before Hitler
could assume power? How would we intervene without aggression of some
kind? We certainly wouldn't take too kindly to Canada coming in and
trying to manipulate our political system to keep warmongers like Bush
out of office -- how can we expect to exert that influence over other
countries peacefully?

Again, I'd like to see an explanation from the pacifists how they can
deal with a Hitler or Pol Pot or such in a non-violent way. Trying to
argue that it would work just fine if we could just prevent any nasty
people from holding positions of power isn't a very convincing one for
me. That's basically saying that if everyone were pacifists, then we
could all be pacifists. Sorry, it doesn't work that way and it never has
worked that way and it's unlikely to work that way in our lifetimes.

While the concept of pacifism is certainly attractive it is not
practical nor a tenable philosophy for any national government so long
as other governments do not practice it.

Zonker
--
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/