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

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Jeffery Cann wrote:

> On Wednesday 05 February 2003 12:36 am, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> > To use other scenarios -- how could we have won independence from the
> > British using pacifism?
>
> Zonker,
>
> I suppose we would have achieved it by another means.  Non-violent resistance.
> Going to jail.  Civil disobedience.  It seems to me that these thinks worked
> for the liberation India, even though people were injured and killed by the
> British.

Really... Perhaps over decades with a greater loss of life and liberty
by colonists in the meantime. However, I don't consider that acceptible.

> > 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.
>
> Just because something isn't considered practical to a group of people does
> excuse the fact that using violence to solve a conflict is unacceptable.  The
> same is true for other governments.  The 'everyone's doing it (using
> violence) argument' doesn't change the fact that people are killed and that
> is wrong.

My argument isn't that "everyone is doing it, so it's okay" it's "you
have a choice - kill or be killed." I'm not, for example, saying that
Nazi Germany's use of violence in any way was legitimate -- I'm saying
that violence was the only way to stop Nazi Germany.

I would also argue that it is not always wrong to kill another person.
Not when that person is actively threatening your life or the life of
another innocent party. Why is it okay for me to kill in that situation,
but not okay for the original aggressor? Simple -- The original
aggressor has no cause for their actions, no reason why they needed to
escalate to violence. They've forced a situation that requires a
response. The person using self-defense or defending another person
didn't provoke the situation or cause it to come about, they're merely
trying to protect their life or the lives of others.

> You haven't answered my question which is how by killing an aggressor are we
> somehow justified in our self-defense yet the agreessor is not justified in
> his attempt to kill us.  Should the agressor be punished?  Of course and that
> would be achieved if the world cared more about protecting life than ending a
> conflict by any means.  If someone is killed, the outcome is the same, no
> matter who started it.

I disagree completely. I think that every life-form has the right to
protect its existence. If I'm not threatening someone, and they attempt
to take my life -- there's no way to justify that action. However, I
have a right to defend myself if attacked -- killing or resorting to
violence in self-defense is not the same as unprovoked violence.

The outcome is NOT the same. One scenario results in an innocent person
losing their life -- and possibly more down the road as the aggressor
remains unchecked in your scenario of non-violence at any cost. The
other scenario results in a violent person being injured or killed after
they attempt to harm or kill another person. The aggressive party's
actions are to blame -- not the person who attempts to defend themselves
or others. If you can't see the distinction, you have some serious
issues.

> We're pretty smart people, you don't think we could find another way to curb a
> psychopathic leader rather than going to war?  But, as long as violence is
> considered the ultimate trump card, people / governments will not work too
> hard to learn other ways of dealing with the problems.

Like I said, if you have a solution, I'd like to hear it. Tell me how we
could have dealt effectively with Hitler using non-violence, and I'll be
glad to listen. You've already admitted you do not have a solution, so
that pretty much tells me that your philosophy doesn't work in the real
world.

Yes, violence IS the trump card. Sorry, but that's the way the world
works. Non-violent solutions may be wonderful in a lot of ways, but
they're not very effective when confronted with an actively hostile
opponent.

> Do I have have the answers or new ways of dealing with these problems?  Not
> yet.  Does that weaken my position?  Perhaps it does.  But I think the
> 'violence' conflict resolution position is just as weak for the same reason
> because no one has given me a justification to use violence, given my
> beliefs.

Well, if defending oneself isn't a "justification" then I don't know
what is. You're saying that non-violence is absolute -- that it is never
right to use violence no matter what, and I disagree. I think that human
life does have value, but that value is not absolute. The value of an
innocent human life is worth more than the life of a person willing to
kill innocents. The lives of people lined up to be put in gas chambers
in Dachau and Auschwitz were worth more than the Nazi soldiers willing
to put them in those chambers, as far as I'm concerned.

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