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

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier (clue at dissociatedpress.net) wrote:
> 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?
> 

I don't disagree with you that Hilter presents a sticky problem for
pacifists.  But, Hitler was allowed to happen by and large by the
victors of WWII.  The social conditions that existed after WWI in
Germany were a direct result of the WWI victors deciding to punish
Germany.  It was those very punishments that almost directly allowed a
person like Hitler to do what he did.  There are wackos everywhere --
most are of no consequence.  Hitler happened to be a charismatic one in a
country economically devastated by foreign powers.  The allies of WWI
gave him the environment he need to gain what he did.

But is really just an aside.  But it does show a way that if pacifist
ideals had been better implemented, the conditions that allowed Hitler
to rise to power might never have been implemented, which is I think
what Jeff's point is.

Tim
--
==============================================
==  Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net  ==
==  http://i148.denver.dsl.forethought.net  ==
== ---------------------------------------- ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
==============================================