Options
Peacemongers and war
farfromglorified
Posts: 5,696
An op-ed that got e-mailed to me today. Not a big fan of the unspoken conclusion that war ends war and is somehow then justified, but just thought it's worth the read:
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/060721-sowell-peace.php
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/060721-sowell-peace.php
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Interesting article. I'm suprised no one has commented on it. I wish I knew more about human psychology. Personally, I think the 'bigger' thing to do is strive for peace, set an example for others, athough, I can see how some peace movements get way off track, usually due to the egos of the leaders. It also seems logical to me that as we evolve, war should not be considered an option. Really, it could ultimately lead to the end of all of us. It seems more intelligent and evolved to negotiate for peace.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It was an interesting article. Some valid points were made. I have no issue with the "peaceniks" as they are just part of the solution process.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I agree. But it is not intelligent to negotiate for peace if a negotiation cannot be made honestly. This is where I agree with the author. A demand for a cease-fire cannot stop a war. It may only postpone a war or prolong a war. Nations do not fight wars because someone has forgotten to call for peace. And a call for peace cannot erase the issue those nations are fighting over.
This would seem to explain why there are so many conspiracy theorists on this board also
I think the "peaceniks" ultimately fail because they do not propose much in the way of alternatives to warfare. Over the past little while, I have come to believe that military force is probably not the best and certainly not the only thing that must be done in response to radical Islam, or any other major threat, for that matter. Even military commanders are starting to argue that force, while necessary in certain situations, only fuels the fire, serving to make extremist views more attractive to young men (in particular). However, anti-war folks often fall into the trap of protesting violent action, condeming the powers that be, but NOT providing much in the way of alternative solutions. I think its clear that something needs to be done about extremism, or the world is doomed.
And in-between criticsing "peaceniks" for their apparent lack of alternative solutions to combating terrorism, what alternative solutions have you thunk up?
Perhaps you're content for now to settle for the follwing solution.....
http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/
Did you even read the article farfromglorified posted?
Instead you just post a link to a bunch of shocking photos? Did you know that there are just as many shocking photos on the Israeli side?
Do you think Hezbollah rockets blow farts when they explode?
To quote the article "War is Hell"
I did indeed read the article. It is obvious on which side this dudes bread is buttered.
"Peace” movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities."
And those on the right, and the warmongers can "..see beyond rhetoric to realities.." can they? I wonder if the war-mongers have an inate ability to automatically consider the consequences of their actions, such as those presented in the photo's above?
"Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany".
I notice that he neglected to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent German civilians who also died in the process. Seems to me this fella has an "..inablity to see beyond rhetoric to realities." I think this prick needs to get off his all too safe arse at Stanford University and head to a war zone to put his "war works" theory to the test.
So therefore peace of mind really causes anger instead? yeah that's makes sense...
:rolleyes:
This article, if anything, actually lends confirmation to conspiracy theories between governments.
Yeah, peaceful societies will actually crave war because they are peaceful....riiiight
It takes two to fight, and it also takes two to create peace. It's a two way street.
Here's a rather interesting quote from him:
"One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances."
yeah...i.e delusional fucktard politicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
btw the title of this thread should be properly labeled "Pacifists Versus Peace", not "Peacemongers and War".... :rolleyes:
more of him if you want it (including the original properly titled article):
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/archive.shtml
.
if the left and right brain could just get along...
It's called whole brain thinking. That's what's required :rolleyes:
How about India?
South Africa?
Is the peace movement the reason we lost Vietnam?
I hardly think World War II is the best analogy to use, their was one clear nation state aggressor, in the case of the current middle east conflicts its a constant series of aggressions on both side, and we all know the people fighting on one side are quite content to keep firing their weapons from piles of rubble.
Ok, but don't you feel that it is even worse to perpetrate a war based on dishonesty? What would you qualify as dishonest negotiations when trying to prevent war?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Not really. The whole impetus of war is dishonesty and corruption. You can't get rid of the dishonesty and corruption by ending the war. But you can get rid of both by ending the dishonesy and corruption.
Simple -- when a negotiator's terms have nothing to do with peace. For example, if Israel and Hezbollah negotiate to peace in this case, those negotiations will not end the conflict. Freeing prisoners on either side....what does that buy us? Six months? A year?
An honest negotiation here is one in which both sides can achieve the terms they require for peace. And as long as either side wishes to anihilalate the other....no such honest negotiation is possible.
Actually, its quite possible, depending on how broadly defined "peace movement" is. The U.S. didn't lose too many battles in Vietnam, if any, but it lost the war in that strategic objectives weren't achieved. People have argued that interference by war-wary American politicians in military decision-making proved to be a deciding factor, and these politicians were undoubtedly influenced by the general anti-war sentiment in the U.S. at the time. I am not arguing that any of this was a bad thing, BTW. Just one factor that contributed to the disaster that was Vietnam.
:eek:
I agree with this.
What so you think would end the conflict? Are you saying any negotiations for peace between these two would be 'dishonest'? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
I agree until each side reconizes each other as human beings and reconizes each other's right to exist, there will be no movement towards peace. Do you not feel that there also has to be compromise between the two sides?
Edit: I just noticed the site this article was posted on, The Atlasphere. I thought the article had a 'Ryn-ish' feel.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Heh....my "not really" wasn't meant to imply that somehow a "dishonest war" is a good thing. It was only meant to imply that a "dishonest war", 9 times out of 10 is simply a redundancy. Furthermore, a dishonest negotiation is what sets the stage for war. In the game of cause and effect, I'll always focus on causes rather than effects.
Cool.
Yes. They would likely be dishonest. Why do you think we've had seemingly 100 ceasefires in the history of this conflict, none of which have ended this conflict.
The answers are simple: war or honesty. There is no middle ground for dishonest negotiation.
I certainly think there does have to be compromise. But in the true sense of the word. Both sides must gain.
Certainly. This all just opinion stuff.
So you're saying that there is no morality or honesty in war, by definition. an 'all is fair in love and war' kind of thinking. I suppose this is what makes war hell, huh?
Well, by your argument, war or honesty being our only choices, it seems that, unfortunately, war has won out each time, seeing how you feel that dishonest negotiations actually lead to war or just 'buy' time. You also imply that since the dishonest negotiation process has been going on for quite a while, chances are future negotiations would follow the same path, thus cycling the violence. Hum, this is a very bleak perspective. However, I still feel people should never stop trying to negotiate for peace. I know, I'm an idealist.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yes. This is pretty much what I'm saying.
I don't have that "bleak perspective" -- it is not necessarily an endless cycle. I believe there is an honest man in every dishonest man. I believe that every single person has the capacity to understand that not even a single death is justified by a piece of land, a religion, or a state.
The Israeli/Palestinian crisis is one defined by pin-the-tail-on-the-aggressor. Look at the posts here, for God's sake. People simply trying to manipulate history by highlighting a subset of facts to prove that their side is the victim. Only one completely blind to the reality of history could believe that one side in this conflict is an aggressor, the other a victim. We have over 50 years of aggression by both sides.
People first need to stop focusing on labelling one side good and the other evil. There are instances of good and evil on both sides. Such past instances should hold no relevancy to a desire for future good. Only the capacity for good and the capacity for a rejection of evil matters. And those are capacities all people hold.
Secondly, people need to accept that no death in these conflicts is further justified. You cannot erase the victimization of Israeli civilians just because more civilians die on the other side. You cannot erase the victimization of those others by suggesting that they all are terrorists, or that they all reject peace. Furthermore, the deaths of IDF soldiers or militants accomplishes nothing in the name of peace. They will simply be replaced. Has 50 years in this conflict taught us nothing? For every one you kill, two more will hunt you down.
Finally, people need to question the reasons for this fight. Land? Religion? Security? What good is land if you must die to hold it? What good is religion if you must die to believe it? What good is security if it cannot be secure? These are simple and old questions. But they are being whitewashed with answers of "terrorist!" or "terrorist state!"
good post, i agree, i'm one of those who condemn power and not always have a solution, but as i once said, we're not all "professional" on that matter, we're just expressing some opinions, same for the hippies or the "peacenicks" or whatever.
This part of "not proposing many solutions" might be a result of a lack of leadership from those "peacenick". Most of the time in history where peace had a great leader, it showed/produced some great result...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Hmmm....it seems to me that if the educational system is failing and sends people out into the world who cannot tell rhetoric from reality, that would refer to the masses.
And if would further seem to me that it makes sense that some people on the fringes of society would, for whatever reason, be so inclined to break through the rhetoric and have a realistic view that is obscured from the veiled masses.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!