Sometimes non-action is more heinous and deplorable then taking action

my2hands · May 2008

Occasionaly situations arise that military intervention is needed, and justifiable. And in these events not taking action is unexusable, selfish, and outright wrong. It is very easy for someone to say "but i am anti war" while drinking a latte on the couch typing on their laptop in a sprawling suburban neighborhood with white picket fences and a mailman that waves everyday. But not everyone has the same luxury of safety that you and I enjoy. I wish the world was a peaceful place where such atrocities didnt happen and evil men didn't climb to power. But until we collectively progress to that point, it is the responsibility of those that can act, to act in times of crisis and severe need.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L7Kgl_S9Xok

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XsdPrQNa0Ig&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXdWDM4fmRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-ojg9UjMk0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-ojg9UjMk0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps64xxJq0mg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTVp-hrJmGE&feature=related

angelica · May 2008

From another thread:

You are demonstrating the very mindsets that those who are caught up in rationales of violence are about. Such mindsets that justify creating killing and horror cannot understand what creating peace really is and therefore will be ineffective in creating the peace they say they want. This is why the "diplomatic efforts" stemming from such mindsets will not work and why war becomes 'necessary' for those who justify war.

As I said earlier: "...by standing for peace and solutions ON ALL LEVELS, we communicate that in our thoughts, words and deeds." We show this in our actions. Those who justify war show they are not dedicated to peace in their thoughts/words/deeds. All aggressors justify their violence, and give themselves reasons and license to be violent as you have done yourself.

Those who are dedicated to creating peace continue to do so all over the world, in peaceful ways. Creating peace is happening everywhere. Those who are creating this peace recognize how powerful changing illusory mindsets is (in themselves and others) because one then eliminates the roots of violence. The few aggressors who identify themselves on the world stage identify their own inner conflict of creating war to create peace, and they show their inner violence externally with ugly, horrible inhumane consequences. Those who create peace and solve problems show their inner resolution of conflict, and externalize this, too, creating peace externally.

dmitry · May 2008

my2hands wrote:

It is very easy for someone to say "but i am anti war" while drinking a chai latte on the couch typing on their laptop in a sprawling suburban neighborhood with white picket fences and a mailman that waves everyday.

I'm not sure if you're in the military or not, but if you're not then it sounds like you should be signing up. Or do you just favor sending other people to intervene?

angelica · May 2008

dmitry wrote:

I'm not sure if you're in the military or not, but if you're not then it sounds like you should be signing up. Or do you just favor sending other people to intervene?

..favor sending others to intervene while drinking chai latte, maybe...

The theory of creating peace does not advocate false dichotomies such as "others must create peace, while I do otherwise". Integrity means having one's stance line up on all angles. And being willing to face it when ones stance does not line up.

Justifying and rationalizing what cannot be justified or rationalized shows fragmentation within, not integrity and wholeness.

DixieN · May 2008

Sometimes non-action is more deplorable than taking action. Sometimes, it's wise. Iraq was not one of those situations in which it was wise to take the action we did. Bush senior was way smarter than his son is. He recognized a no-win morass when he saw it and wisely stayed away, as has every other intelligent president we've had. These presidents weren't drinking chai latte; they were thinking...thinking that actions carry consequences, intended and unintended. This ability to reason is beyond our current administration and our current leader. His goal is to do something, anything. Desperation for a legacy is a stupid, stupid, stupid excuse for action that doesn't involve his life on the line, nor the lives of his loved ones. Action in Iraq has made us less secure at home...it has been an outright gift to Iran and it has made us more terrorist enemies, who in their sheer numbers are more likely to hit us at home. Action has been deplorable. Oh, yes. Action has brought us closer to utopia. It's not we who have abandoned reality, but Bush and his supporters who felt Iraq to be a slam dunk. That was so realistic.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · May 2008

i cant handle any more pacifism for now. its making me nauseous :0 forward all inquiries to my posts in the obama/iraq war thread

my2hands · May 2008

dmitry wrote:

I'm not sure if you're in the military or not, but if you're not then it sounds like you should be signing up. Or do you just favor sending other people to intervene?

not even close...

i simply view the world sitting back and watching 1 million people getting slaughtered in a genocide immoral. almsot as immoral as the original crime.

a burglar kicks down your door, who do you call? the guys with the guns.

we all want peace. we all want stability. we all despise war. however some just choose to stick their head in the sand when it comes time to realize that sometimes action must be taken. it is unfortunate but true.

and if you think that makes me a war monger or that i need to sign up, then you are sadly mistaken and completely misunderstanding my point.

i advise everyone to watch a very good film, "Hotel Rwanda", and maybe you will better understand my point.

i advocate for peace. i have been a local advocate for peace in my community and belong to a well established peace organization in my communtiy. I have tought peace and non violence to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young men and women i deal with in my job. i have also taken direct non-violent action agaisnt the current illegal and immoral war in Iraq and have been an outspoken critic of it since it began. But that does not mean i apply a rigid, non bending, self righteous philosophy to every situation. Nothing is absolute. Military inetrvention should be the last option, only when all other options have been exhausted. I just simply understand that occasionaly all other options will be used and non effective, and that occasionaly the military option must be exercised for a justifiable and moral cause. Such as the Revolutionary War and WW2. If it was not for men and women stepping up in the face of chaos for a greater cause, then we would not even have a country we call the United States of America.

I believe the world watching and not taking action while 1,000,000 people are slaughtered simply based on ethnic backgrounds is IMMORAL and UNEXCUSABLE. That does not make me a cheerleader for the military, that makes me a human being that believes people in a position to help, should help. And sometimes that help comes in the form of military intervention, as a last resort, to protect innocent people from the savagery of evil men and evil movements.

my2hands · May 2008

DixieN wrote:

Sometimes non-action is more deplorable than taking action. Sometimes, it's wise. Iraq was not one of those situations in which it was wise to take the action we did. Bush senior was way smarter than his son is. He recognized a no-win morass when he saw it and wisely stayed away, as has every other intelligent president we've had. These presidents weren't drinking chai latte; they were thinking...thinking that actions carry consequences, intended and unintended. This ability to reason is beyond our current administration and our current leader. His goal is to do something, anything. Desperation for a legacy is a stupid, stupid, stupid excuse for action that doesn't involve his life on the line, nor the lives of his loved ones. Action in Iraq has made us less secure at home...it has been an outright gift to Iran and it has made us more terrorist enemies, who in their sheer numbers are more likely to hit us at home. Action has been deplorable. Oh, yes. Action has brought us closer to utopia. It's not we who have abandoned reality, but Bush and his supporters who felt Iraq to be a slam dunk. That was so realistic.

i am in no way talking about the current immoral war in Iraq.

the conversation, i hope, moves beyond that obvious clusterfuck into a genuine discussion about times when it may be neccesary to act.

my2hands · May 2008

angelica wrote:

Those who are dedicated to creating peace continue to do so all over the world, in peaceful ways.

How did that work out for the 6 million jews that were slaughetred or the 500,000 people of darfur that were slaughtered? these are real events and are not stories in a book

i am sorry but i view your take on this as naive

angelica · May 2008

my2hands wrote:

angelica wrote:

Those who are dedicated to creating peace continue to do so all over the world, in peaceful ways.

How did that work out for the 6 million jews that were slaughetred or the 500,000 people of darfur that were slaughtered? these are real events and are not stories in a book

When we have a lack of the creation of peace, it is because people are not creating peace.

When we take a lack of something...ie: peace, if we add in a lack of peace, for example, war, we are not creating peace. We are creating more of a lack of peace.

Peace and the creation of peace are not responsible for what happened to the six million jews. Those creating infringement and lack of peace are responsible.

It seems that you suggest that it was war and killing that solved that problem ultimately. If it did, it did so maladaptively, rather than adaptively. When we maladapt rather than adapt, we continue to perpetuate our maladapted lifestyles, creating ongoing fluctuations of negative consequences for years, decades and centuries to come. It's evident that this has happened. The mindsets from the 40s still reverberate and echo on in people such as yourself in this moment. It's widespread that people continue to justify and perpetuate these cycles. Evolution and actual adaptation continue to exist beyond willful blindness to it.

Collin · May 2008

my2hands wrote:

How did that work out for the 6 million jews that were slaughetred or the 500,000 people of darfur that were slaughtered? these are real events and are not stories in a book

And how well did action work for those innocent people brutally slaughtered, killed and maimed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima or Dresden? And where are the people who killed them and gave those orders now?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2008

Diplomacy There is a peaceful solution to every situation

I don't buy this eventual "absolute need" for war and conflict nonsense.

It's a crock of $hit driven into people's heads by war mongers...

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · May 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Diplomacy There is a peaceful solution to every situation

I don't buy this eventual "absolute need" for war and conflict nonsense.

It's a crock of $hit driven into people's heads by war mongers...

THERE IS NOT ALWAYS A PEACEFUL SOLUTION WHEN SUFFERING IS IMMINENT OR CURRENTLY ONGOING.

a man walks into a room where a woman is being raped. what does he do? what is the peaceful solution? should he plead with the rapist to stop? call the cops and wait? wish that someone had acted previously to prevent this poor soul from becoming the rapist and feel guilty for not doing more sooner? or should he just grab a bat and cave his head in, thus stopping the IMMINENT AND ONGOING SUFFERING OF THE INNOCENT?

now of course you wont answer that but at least read it and ask yourself what the moral choice is in that situation.

of course nations lie about it all the time. war isnt usually necessary when they say it is. but that doesnt negate the fact that in rare occasions violence is the only option, and in that case pacifism is no different than inaction.

Collin · May 2008

MrSmith wrote:

THERE IS NOT ALWAYS A PEACEFUL SOLUTION WHEN SUFFERING IS IMMINENT OR CURRENTLY ONGOING.

a man walks into a room where a woman is being raped. what does he do? what is the peaceful solution? should he plead with the rapist to stop? call the cops and wait? wish that someone had acted previously to prevent this poor soul from becoming the rapist and feel guilty for not doing more sooner? or should he just grab a bat and cave his head in, thus stopping the IMMINENT AND ONGOING SUFFERING OF THE INNOCENT?

now of course you wont answer that but at least read it and ask yourself what the moral choice is in that situation.

of course nations lie about it all the time. war isnt usually necessary when they say it is. but that doesnt negate the fact that in rare occasions violence is the only option, and in that case pacifism is no different than inaction.

When I read this sentence: "a man walks into a room where a woman is being raped. what does he do?"

I immediately thought the guy should go over pull the guy off and give him a few kicks, secure him and call the police. Not cave his head in with a bat and killing the person.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · May 2008

Collin wrote:

When I read this sentence: "a man walks into a room where a woman is being raped. what does he do?"

I immediately thought the guy should go over pull the guy off and give him a few kicks, secure him and call the police. Not cave his head in with a bat and killing the person.

that would be the sensible choice, even though it requires force.

I ,being the caveman that i am, probably couldnt control myself in that situation though, and probably go overboard (hence the bat). so i guess i gave all bad answers

my2hands · May 2008

Collin wrote:

When I read this sentence: "a man walks into a room where a woman is being raped. what does he do?"

I immediately thought the guy should go over pull the guy off and give him a few kicks, secure him and call the police. Not cave his head in with a bat and killing the person.

right, secure him until the guys with the guns come. however if the rapist posed a threat to the life of anyone in that situation then i could easily juystify taking lethal action against him. and by the way, in that situation i think i am goign to hacve to do more then "pull him off and give a few kicks", i have to assume when i engage him that he will not hesitate to take my or anyone elses life. that would not be a school yard fight type of situation. you would have to meet him with enough force to completely overwhelm him and imemdiately eliminate him as a threat. that doesnt mean kill him, but that could mean hitting him in thr head with a bat.

you have made the point exactly. action must be taken. i am not saying you drop a nuclear weapon and kill everything living and breathing. i am saying you simply intervene enough to stop the wrongdoing and the people committing these acts and to eliminate the threat. i am not advocating the use of excessive force, such as the examples given a few posts back of nagasaki, hiroshima, and dresden. those were immoral MASSIVE attacks on civilain population centers when negotiations were cleary leading to the Japanse surrender within days.

my2hands · May 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Diplomacy There is a peaceful solution to every situation

I don't buy this eventual "absolute need" for war and conflict nonsense.

It's a crock of $hit driven into people's heads by war mongers...

what was the peaceful solution to darfur?

or Nazi Germany rolling through Europe in Panzer tanks?

whats the peaceful solution to the crisis in Burma? where they are openly murdering peaceful Monks?

remember Tiananmen square? the PEACEFUL demonstrators were rolled over by tanks...

there are no absolutes so there is not a peaceful solution to every situation. conflict involes human beings, so therefore it is not always a conflict iof rational people on both sides, or either side for that matter

take the slaughter of the Tutsi's for example... do you think those are rational people hacking children to death with machete's? do you think those are rational people that are sytematically raping women and children?

angelica · May 2008

my2hands wrote:

right, secure him until the guys with the guns come. however if the rapist posed a threat to the life of anyone in that situation then i could easily juystify taking lethal action against him.

Of course you can. You obviously justify whatever you want to.

and by the way, in that situation i think i am goign to hacve to do more then "pull him off and give a few kicks", i have to assume when i engage him that he will not hesitate to take my or anyone elses life. that would not be a school yard fight type of situation. you would have to meet him with enough force to completely overwhelm him and imemdiately eliminate him as a threat. that doesnt mean kill him, but that could mean hitting him in thr head with a bat.

And you will live with the consequences. For example, if you go beyond using reasonable force, there are legal ramifications for doing so. And if you were to kill him, as MrSmith advocates, you'd have the death of someone on your hands, in a situation when it was unnecessary. As we progress in life, if we are to remain healthy, we need to come to terms with our own actions. Killing someone unecessarily is an act that I imagine is challenging to come to terms with once the violence and inner hostility passes. Overkill in a situation, and stepping over those lines and outletting one's inner hostility is not about the original attempted rape in this case. The law differentiates quite carefully. I am personally grateful that the law has high standards for accountability, even if justice is meted out by flawed individuals.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2008

my2hands wrote:

what was the peaceful solution to darfur?

or Nazi Germany rolling through Europe in Panzer tanks?

whats the peaceful solution to the crisis in Burma? where they are openly murdering peaceful Monks?

remember Tiananmen square? the PEACEFUL demonstrators were rolled over by tanks...

there are no absolutes so there is not a peaceful solution to every situation. conflict involes human beings, so therefore it is not always a conflict iof rational people on both sides, or either side for that matter

take the slaughter of the Tutsi's for example... do you think those are rational people hacking children to death with machete's? do you think those are rational people that are sytematically raping women and children?

EVERY reality has a peaceful solution.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · May 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

EVERY reality has a peaceful solution.

nuh-uh

angelica · May 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

EVERY reality has a peaceful solution.

The problem here is that my2hands and MrSmith are compromising ideals. Therefore they are overlooking the actual ideals. It makes perfect sense that we compromise our ideals all the time in practical living. But to justify that and to argue for doing so doesn't make any sense at all. And by doing so, one blinds themselves to the ideals.....

You are correct, when we are willing to open our eyes and our minds, we are able to find the peaceful solution in every situation. And by doing it regarding past situations, we develop the perfect vision of hindsight, which then can become insight and foresight. If we want to keep justifying compromising ideals and holding our eyes shut, we will continue repeating the past errors we've made. my2hands acknowledges we are not evolved past war all the while he is actively caught up in that lack of evolution. Those who are the frontrunners creating the potential all humans have for creating solutions and peace are not perpetuating the lack of evolution.

Sometimes non-action is more heinous and deplorable then taking action

Comments

Categories