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

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Jeffery Cann wrote:

> Randy,
>
> Thanks for your response.  I realize that my opposition to violence is
> unpopular.  I do not mean to offend anyone and I will try my best to clarify
> my point.
>
> As far as what I would have done about Hitler, I cannot give you a good answer
> and I don't think it's a fair question.  Most folks who are against pacifism
> seem to bring up this argument.  I know little of the deeper facts regarding
> Hitler's rise to power, so I have no response on hypothetical changes to
> history other than I oppose war or violence as a means to end a conflict, so
> I am sure I would have opposed Hitler and WWII.

It's a very fair question. The fact that you don't have a good answer
underscores the difficulty with pacifism -- not a problem with the
question. The question isn't "how can I rearrange history to make
pacifism a viable solution" it's "how could pacifism have responded to
Nazi Germany or any country willing to use violence to achieve its
goals?"

> The question for us to answer is:
>
> Why must we continue with violence to resolve conflicts?

Because others are willing to use violence to achieve their ends. The
only way that pacifism can work as a philosophy is if nearly everyone on
the planet is willing to practice it -- and we're nowhere near that. I
doubt we ever will be.

> To summarize my point:
> 1) I highly value the sanctity of human life - based on religious beliefs.

That's well and fine -- but other people do not share your religious
beliefs or the belief in the sanctity of human life. The question is
whether you are willing to allow innocent human lives to be sacrificed
to uphold your belief that all human life is sacred.

Let me put it this way: If I'm holding a gun to someone's head, and I'm
planning to kill them -- would it be right for you to take my life
before I can take theirs? If someone is going to die either way, isn't
it better for the agressor to die rather than an innocent person? If I
have to make a choice between the life of a friend or family member,
hell -- even the life of a total stranger, versus some psycho who wants
to kill them... there's no choice. The psycho dies if I have any say
about it and the innocent person gets to live. Why? Because I do believe
that life has value -- and it is worth defending against someone willing
to try to take it away.

Imagine that on a massive scale -- do you allow Hitler to kill millions
of people, or do you go to war with Germany to try to prevent innocents
from being killed? Yes, people will die -- some of them innocent. But
how many more would have died had we not fought against Nazi Germany?
Through inaction, people would have died anyway. Just different people,
and probably more of them. I cannot see how that would be just.

> 2) Violence or wars to resolve conflicts is against my beliefs - it violates
> this sanctity.
> 3) Collateral damage, as you called it in order to prevent more / future
> deaths is not justified.  Even the term 'collateral damage' is terrible - it
> disregards the importance of human life.  What happens when one of our family
> members happens to be one of the collaterally damaged?  How would their death
> be right in the name of peace?

What if one of your family members is threatened by someone like Hitler?
Do you just smile and nod and watch them march off to the gas chamber
without lifting a finger? How is that right?

> Finally, regarding your final statement - "And, it has been paid for in
> blood by the men and women of the US Armed Forces." -  Does this payment, this
> horrible and tragic death of people in past wars, now justify more deaths in
> future wars?  Please elaborate.  My question to you is:
>
> "Why do we kill people, who kill people to show that killing people is bad?"

I don't believe that is an accurate assessment. When going to war, the
objective isn't to kill people -- it's to weaken the other force to the
point where they surrender while protecting your own forces as much as
possible.

Yes, that means that some people will be killed. But we didn't go to war
with Germany to prove a point - we went to war to stop the German army
from killing more people and taking over more of Europe and to stop the
persecution of the Jews and other groups within Germany. To remove
Hitler from power -- not to teach Hitler that killing was wrong and then
let him resume ruling Germany, nor as an object lesson for other
countries who might be thinking about being the next Nazi Germany --
though one would certainly hope it would do that as well.

The real lesson is "if you make war on your neighbors, we will stop
you. If you kill millions of innocents, we will stop you. We are willing
to use force when necessary."

Do you think Hitler would have stopped of his own accord? If not, how
can you justify being inactive?

> I believe that our propensity to view violence as a means to end conflict is
> entirely the problem with our society.  The fact that military personnel
> _have_ died to resolve conflicts (or in some cases not resolve them) is
> horrible and tragic.  The fact that so many have died (and will continue to
> die) because of war / violence indicates how little we value our fellow
> humans.

So, propose a solution. Give me a concrete example of how a country can
protect itself or its allies against a country that is willing to use
violence against it. If you cannot, then you cannot argue that pacifism
is viable in the world as it is today.

Certainly, there is no justification for being the first to strike. I
don't think that we should be going to war with Iraq for actions that
maybe, might, possibly, someday occur.

> When wars or violence occurs, the parties are saying to each other:  "We care
> so little about you that we would rather you die at our hands than to work
> out some other course of action."

Sort of, maybe. What is often being said is "hey, you're attacking my
country or my allies. With guns and bombs and other means of
destruction. I'm pretty sure that if I say "please stop" you won't. I'm
pretty sure that if I send troops over with Nerf guns and non-lethal
implements they're going to wind up dead, and you'll continue the
negative behavior that we're trying to stop. I'm going to have to
respond with violence because it is the final option in this scenario. I
will apply violence until you surrender and we can resume a peaceful
relationship with your country and whatever government comes after
yours."

> In my observation of personal conflicts, rarely do you start at the "let's go
> to war phase".  A disagreement occurs and left unresolved will escalate past
> some mythical point of no return.  I believe that if folks were committed to
> justice and held fellow humans (even those we disagree with) in the highest
> regard we would never get to the point of violence.  Let me restate:  Justice
> short-circuits violence for conflict resolution.

Maybe -- but what about those rare occasions? What about an instance
where someone simply shortcuts to violence? Am I supposed to simply
allow someone to pummel me or attempt to kill me without responding?
Sorry, I don't see that as viable. In my life I certainly hope that I
can solve all conflicts non-violently, but in the end -- if my life or
health is threatened by another human being, I am not going to simply
allow that. As far as I'm concerned, that person has devalued their own
life by threatening mine -- they've escalated a conflict to the point
where violence is the only possible effective response. I might try to
subdue them rather than kill them, but I'm certainly not just going to
try to reason with a person while they're swinging a baseball bat at me
or something equally violent.

> Given the tremendous capabilities and potential that lies within all of us, I
> am dismayed that so few of us even strive for, much less achieve justice and
> peace.  I know I personally fail often to work for justice in all aspects of
> my life.
>
> What would happen if we all committed to justice?

That would be wonderful, but it's a big honking "if."

> If we did not tolerate injustice by our fellow humans and our governments?

The question, again, is how do we respond non-violently to violence? If
that injustice takes the form of someone willing to kill others, how do
you bring them to justice if you are unwilling to kill them? If they
know this, they'll simply kill anyone who tries to capture them. If I am
willing to kill or use violence -- and you are not -- you are at a
severe disadvantage, my friend.

> How much more peaceful would our world be?
> How much safer would you and I feel each day?
> How sooner could we face up to brutal thugs like Hitler or Saddam, instead of
> waiting until 'we have no other choice but war'?
>
> For more information about non-violence, I'll recommend the following:
> writings by Muhatma Ghandi,  Martin Luther King, Jr. and the New Testament of
> the Bible - specifically Jesus' teachings about peace.  Their thoughts led me
> to my  beliefs on peace and justice 13 years ago.  I still hold fast to them
> today.

I'd like to recommend you read "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein.
He has some interesting things to say about pacifism...

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