"Pacifism and war"

Originally posted by zeeblebot
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." "

Who watched when the Germans re militarised the Rhineland. The conservatives

Who stood by during the Anchluss? The conservatives

Who signed the Czechs into oblivion? Chamberlain, the conservative Prime Minister

Who wanted to surrender in 1940? Lord Halifax the conservative deputy leader and Foreign secratary.

Who reduced expenditure on arms in the UK in the 1930s? The conservatives.

Who opposed Churchill's wartime coalition? The conservatives

But please don't let any facts get in the way of your opinions

Originally posted by DOlivier2004
Hmmmm. 6000 years of recorded history about violence, peace and progress, and guess what? We are still here.

Well...some of us are still here.
Proof that pacifism is not hereditary.

Originally posted by DOlivier2004

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.

So you admit that violence leads to violence and then you say: "violence may be the only answer to create peace."

Sounds like a contradiction to me...

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
So you admit that violence leads to violence and then you say: "violence may be the only answer to create peace."

Sounds like a contradiction to me...

Not at all. If you read my post closely, I gave consequences of violence:

1) violence leading to war, leading to one party conquering another.
2) violence leading to stalemate (2 equally matched opponents), leading to a peaceful resolution (albeit it may take anywhere between 2 to 200 years).

Hence, the only answer to create peace falls neatly under option 1.

Whenever I see that phrase, I think of this: I pull a knife, you pull a gun, I pull an automatic, you pull a grenade, I pull a rocket, you pull a bomb, I pull a nulear bomb. And so on, and so forth. You can take it to its logical conclusion (destruction of all parties involved). The statement infers that when starting violence, the resulting violence will never end. Realistically, one party will blink.

The idea I'm driving at is that violence will stop at some point. How will depend on context.