haha ... imagine the Labor rally had succeeded, and Britain had disarmed prior to WWII ...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20010924.shtml
T. Sowell, September 24, 2001
"Pacifism and war
Although most Americans seem to understand the gravity of the situation that terrorism has put us in -- and the need for some serious military response, even if that means dangers to the lives of us all -- there are still those who insist on posturing, while on the edge of a volcano. In the forefront are college students who demand a "peaceful" response to an act of war. But there are others who are old enough to know better, who are still repeating the pacifist platitudes of the 1930s that contributed so much to bringing on World War II.
...
Then as now, pacifism was a "statement" about one's ideals that paid little attention to actual consequences. At a Labor Party rally where Britain was being urged to disarm "as an example to others," economist Roy Harrod asked one of the pacifists: "You think our example will cause Hitler and Mussolini to disarm?"
The reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?" In other words, the issue was about making a "statement" -- that is, posturing on the edge of a volcano, with World War II threatening to erupt at any time. When disarmament advocate George Bernard Shaw was asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain, the playwright replied, "Welcome them as tourists." "
I have to ask, how did pacifism cause WW2? You see, I was under the impression Germany being mad over losing WW1 caused the war. After all, Hitler was the agressor (pardon spelling). And WW1 was caused by the alliances in Europe, so no matter how I look at it, I can't see how pacifism caused WW1.
EDIT: Ah, I see that little sentence on top. So your convinced that since Britian might've, but didn't, disarm, then WW2 happened. Definitely not how things worked. And, btw, pacifists aren't all about disarmament. Actually, most modern-day pacifists are against disarmament, as it provides a good deterrent for other nations. Against the further research of nuclear weapons? Yes, without a doubt. But maybe you should learn a bit more about history and the views your criticizing before you criticize them.
I suppose it is possible that you totally disagree with the article that you quoted, in which case saying so in the post would've been a good idea.
Originally posted by EstelThe point zeeblebot is trying to make is that pacifists are stupid and are not living in the real world. The real world being a place where the "good guys" should stay armed to the teeth with every weapon they can build and the largest army they can afford. Just in case the "bad guys" attack.
I have to ask, how did pacifism cause WW2? You see, I was under the impression Germany being mad over losing WW1 caused the war. After all, Hitler was the agressor (pardon spelling). And WW1 was caused by the alliances in Europe, so no matter how I look at it, I can't see how pacifism caused WW1.
This is a typical conservative view. One where every issue is black and white and simple.
This is also reminds me of an old saying: "When all you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail."
Originally posted by wibSo you throw away your hammer and find out that everything you build falls apart.
The point zeeblebot is trying to make is that pacifists are stupid and are not living in the real world. The real world being a place where the "good guys" should stay armed to the teeth with every weapon they can build and the largest army they can afford. Just in case the "bad guys" attack.
This is a typical conservative view. One where every issue i ...[text shortened]... f an old saying: "When all you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail."
Or maybe you beat your swords into ploughshares only to discover that someone with swords takes over your farm.
Originally posted by DelmerNope. The answer IMO is too keep a strong military, well trained, well supplied, and as technologically advanced and as far ahead of the competition as possible. And use them for defense.
So you throw away your hammer and find out that everything you build falls apart.
Or maybe you beat your swords into ploughshares only to discover that someone with swords takes over your farm.
And I'm all in favor of spying on every other country on the planet. I've got no problem with that.
But we didn't do that in the case of Iraq. We invaded their country, destroyed their military, damaged their infrastructure, and occupied the country. Killing somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 soldiers and or citizens. 3 years later and we're still in Iraq and more people are dying now than were dying DURING the war.
So I'd say our reach has exceeded our grasp in this case.
Originally posted by wibAs a Libertarian isolationist, I have no problem with that, wib. I think we should have stayed out of WWI and WWII, Vietnam, Korea etc. But we're there and I think it may be a little early to write off the Middle East.
Nope. The answer IMO is too keep a strong military, well trained, well supplied, and as technologically advanced and as far ahead of the competition as possible. And use them for defense.
And I'm all in favor of spying on every other country on the planet. I've got no problem with that.
But we didn't do that in the case of Iraq. We invaded their c ...[text shortened]... n were dying DURING the war.
So I'd say our reach has exceeded our grasp in this case.
Originally posted by Estelhmmm ... it doesn't look like you've read even the portion i snipped ...
I have to ask, how did pacifism cause WW2? You see, I was under the impression Germany being mad over losing WW1 caused the war. After all, Hitler was the agressor (pardon spelling). And WW1 was caused by the alliances in Europe, so no matter how I look at it, I can't see how pacifism caused WW1.
EDIT: Ah, I see that little sentence on top. So your co ...[text shortened]... ith the article that you quoted, in which case saying so in the post would've been a good idea.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardHmmmm. 6000 years of recorded history about violence, peace and progress, and guess what? We are still here.
Violence leads to violence and will ultimately lead to the destuction of mankind.
It's ironic discussing this in a site on chess, where one person seeks to violently assert his or her will on aonther over 64 squares. It's a miniature version of war, just without the blood, and you can live to fight another day if you lose on the chessboard.
Anyhoo, I much prefer the aphorism: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Who knows if there will be another Hitler and the free world may be too complacent or pacified to respond to an unreasonable enemy?
Originally posted by DOlivier2004Yes, we have a history of violence. And a lesson you can learn from this history is that violence leads to violence. Maybe you have noticed that the last century has been by far the most violent of all...
Hmmmm. 6000 years of recorded history about violence, peace and progress, and guess what? We are still here.
It's ironic discussing this in a site on chess, where one person seeks to violently assert his or her will on aonther over 64 squares. It's a miniature version of war, just without the blood, and you can live to fight another day if you l ...[text shortened]... Hitler and the free world may be too complacent or pacified to respond to an unreasonable enemy?
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardThe reason why the 20th century was the most violent of all is that we invented better ways to kill ourselves, first with the machine gun, then the tank, then the airplane, then the nuclear bomb.
Yes, we have a history of violence. And a lesson you can learn from this history is that violence leads to violence. Maybe you have noticed that the last century has been by far the most violent of all...
At some point, violence has to stop, either through the destruction of the other guy, or stalemate. If stalemate (or Mutually Assured Destruction during the 60s- Cuban Missle Crisis, anyone?) then countries stop and negotiate peace treaties. Or people stop and work out their differences if violence doesn't achieve their ends. For wars I can cite from memory and for this example the War of 1812 and the Thirty Years War leading to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
In short, to the statement "Violence leads to Violence", I say So what? It comes down to context. Violence is best avoided, but when faced with an implacable foe, violence may be the only answer to create peace.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe deal behind pacifism is:
haha ... imagine the Labor rally had succeeded, and Britain had disarmed prior to WWII ...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20010924.shtml
T. Sowell, September 24, 2001
"Pacifism and war
Although most Americans seem to understand the gravity of the situation that terrorism has put us in -- and the need for some serious military re ...[text shortened]... azis crossed the channel into Britain, the playwright replied, "Welcome them as tourists." "
Every reason for killing is as good as every other reason for killing, depending on who's viewpoint you're taking.
So, best not to kill.
Much like the bible really: Thou shallt not kill....