Pacifism and the War - Page 2

AMosely · 05-30-2006, 12:37 PM

OK, I'll bite.

I will only quote this to prove its almost complete irrelevance to the conflicts we face in the 21st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orwell

Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one.

I think this statement held true during World War II, when Nazi occupation of Europe was a reality. While America was not under attack from Nazi Germany, it's allies were, and it remains a fact that America may not have survived the fall of its European allies, and conversely they clearly would not have survived without American intervention.

This is not the situation we find ourselves in today, nor much of the latter half of the 20th century. I do not believe that radical Islam or terrorism as a tactic of oppressed people is a threat to America or its allies. If you want me to explain, I will:

Today's Islamic terrorists (which is now a diverse group made up of various religious and ethnic groups in different theaters) are threats to our security at home and most certainly abroad, but not threats to existence of the country itself, nor any other democratic society. Militant extremists, whether Islamic or otherwise, are not attempting to take over the world nor dismantle any and all free countries. As has been said many times over by various 'enemy' leaders, organizations and individuals - they are fighting what they believe to be an attack on their way of life by 'western' civilization. They don't hate our 'freedom.' They do hate western support of the creation and existence of the state of Israel, mainly because its borders were carved out of what once was Palestine.

Does pacifism in 2006 help the Islamic cause? It does if it pushes American policy to a less aggressive stance, which I would argue helps the cause of freedom at the same time. It is my belief that continued aggression helps the Islamic cause even more by continuing to provide evidence of American agression against Islam. I believe that focusing our efforts on homeland security and re-thinking our relationship and involvement with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are the best approaches to 'victory' in this conflict.

We are not fighting global domination/occupation here - different fight, different pacifism.

Diceman · 05-30-2006, 01:08 PM

I read the essay - the whole thing seems to revovle on accepting as premise the notion that failing to aid party A is, in actuality, aiding party B. I don't think it is that simple, the facist tendances of Comfort, Savage and Woodcock aside. A corresponding argument, and one that is by no means closed (and it relates nicely to Cing's Moral Murder thread), is the question of whether there is a difference between killing and letting die.

Without getting into the killing vs. letting-die argument, I think there is a difference. I also think there is a difference between fighting in a war and not fighting in a war. I believe that it is an attempt to over-simplify a situation, when trying to reduce something as complex as the activities of many millions of individuals into a simple binary relationship.

That, and the fact that Orwell seems to spend most of his time writing specifically to his detractors and less time to an audience at large. I feel as though I've come into a conversation a few hours too late.

Edit: Yes, Zoolander is hilarious. Highly recommended. Gasoline fights, on the other hand, ought to be avoided.

**leejo** · 05-30-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orwell

I am not interested in pacifism as a ‘moral phenomenon’. If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the <snip> army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen.

I think we ARE fighting global domination and occupation here. Do you suppose that the Islamic movement in Europe and elsewhere will be emboldened or satisfied if they drive the US out of Iraq and the jews out of Israel? Will this result in more Islamic moderates achieving a net gain in political power in the region or more of the radicals who will have gotten these successes growing in stature and power?

To translate Orwell's list of how Pacifists twist reality to suit their ends from the war on Fascism he knew to the War on Terror in which we are:

1. There is a systematic exaggeration of the fascizing processes occurring in our country as a result of war. (NSA, Gitmo, Patriot Act)
2. The actual record of these Islamic movements and terror organizations, especially its pre-war history is ignored or pooh-poohed as propaganda. Discussion of what the world would actually be like if they dominated it is evaded.
3. Those who want to struggle against Islamic terror are accused of being wholehearted defenders of capitalist ‘democracy’ (blood for oil).
4. It is tacitly pretended that the war is really only between Israel and Islam, and the USA has blundered between them with its aggressive posture. Mention of European, Middle Eastern states, Russia, and their fate if Islamic terror is permitted to win, is avoided.

Talk of an aggressive US posture ignores 30 years of terror attacks on its citizens and interests. For too long, the US wasn't aggressive enough because of it's interest in keeping the price of oil low. And now that a President has chosen to bite the bullet and do what he must even though it makes for pricey gas, look how we howl!

The "peace" movement in this country is the group who are most willing to abandon the entire middle east to continued dictatorship and horror, nevermind the risk of Islamic groups gaining political power in France, Germany, and beyond.

AMosely · 05-30-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I think we ARE fighting global domination and occupation here. Do you suppose that the Islamic movement in Europe and elsewhere will be emboldened or satisfied if they drive the US out of Iraq and the jews out of Israel? Will this result in more Islamic moderates achieving a net gain in political power in the region or more of the radicals who will have gotten these successes growing in stature and power?

This is one of our key differences. Yes, I do feel as though radical Islam would be satisfied to be left alone - US out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel out of Palestine. All of the evidence I've seen in the form of public statements, writings and interviews, does not indicate any desire on the part of Islamic governments or organizations to expand their borders or otherwise wage war on another country with the intent to destroy it. They only speak of waging war on 'infidels' who they feel are waging war on Islam. Waging war on Islamic territory (Iraq, Afghanistan) and continuing biased support of Israeli occupation does not seem to be a good method of disproving this belief.

Just for the record, I am not advocating the dismantling of Israel. Human history seems to provide a legitimate case for both Jews and Muslims to live and worship on that ground. I am also not advocating an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe that doing so would do more harm than good at this point in time. My opinion on this matter is therefore limited by the decisions and actions previously undertaken by my government.

**leejo** · 05-30-2006, 01:42 PM

So when people are murdered in Europe over some cartoons, this makes you think that radical Islam will be happy to sit on its sand to live and let live?

Diceman · 05-30-2006, 01:49 PM

For the record, because I see this discussion going in a different direction, Orwell was speaking about pacifism. Opposition to the Americans in Iraq, or any other specific battle, is not pacifism, per se.

**leejo** · 05-30-2006, 01:52 PM

I think, per se, it accomplishes the same negative effect - helping the enemy - as pacifism.

In fact, though, the opposition to the Americans in Iraq hasn't been based so much on the position that we SHOULD be in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Syria as it has been based on the position that the USA ought to adopt a less aggressive posture, which in any practical terms is pacifism.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 05-30-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

For the record, because I see this discussion going in a different direction, Orwell was speaking about pacifism. Opposition to the Americans in Iraq, or any other specific battle, is not pacifism, per se.

Yes, exactly. Think in terms of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. While there are those that do think along those lines today, I doubt any in this forum would say "Just stand here and let those against us bomb away. Eventually they will get tired or the rest of the world will pressure them to stop."

If that is what some in this community do think others are saying, well no wonder the arguments.

Diceman · 05-30-2006, 02:02 PM

Stealing and transmitting top secret documents would be helping the enemy. But that is not equivalent to thinking that the Iraq campaign is wrong, for whatever reason (be it morally, diplomatically or strategically). And thinking that Iraq is wrong doesn't make one a pacifist, even though a pacificist and an otherwise-motivated dissenter would share that one particular view. Politics makes for strange bed-fellows, and all that.

I still believe that the suggested equality is an oversimplification to a false dichotomy.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 05-30-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I think, per se, it accomplishes the same negative effect - helping the enemy - as pacifism.

In fact, though, the opposition to the Americans in Iraq hasn't been based so much on the position that we SHOULD be in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Syria as it has been based on the position that the USA ought to adopt a less aggressive posture, which in any practical terms is pacifism.

But even if it does have the same effect, and that is debatable, using that text to support another stance is intellectually dishonest.

As to your second point, even you can admit that there is a point where a nation is no longer defending itself and is, in fact, unjustifiably attacking others. Where that line exists at is not clear and I think it is important for all of us to constantly watch those we have put into power to ensure that they do not go over it. But because that point is not readily apparent how else are we to know, other than discussion, criticism and counter criticism?

Steeler · 05-30-2006, 02:52 PM

Opposition to war also comes in the form of tactical or strategic discussion. Being able to choose the most appropriate response to an aggressor, threat, or potential threat is key to good governance.

**leejo** · 05-30-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But even if it does have the same effect, and that is debatable, using that text to support another stance is intellectually dishonest.

What does "intellectually dishonest" mean? And what's intellectually dishonest about taking an essay that discusses how pacifists supported the enemy in one conflict and applying it to show how pacifists support an enemy in another clonflict?

In any case, read the essay and think about Orwell's thoughts on people who consider themselves aloof from a fight and how their words and deeds only serve to aid the enemy who is killing their countrymen.

**leejo** · 05-30-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Yes, exactly. Think in terms of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. .

Excellent choice! As Orwell said in his essay:

Quote:

As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.

Diceman · 05-30-2006, 03:39 PM

I think Gringo's (and Orwell's, incidentally) point is that pacifism is characterized by Ghandi and MLK - not so much by the vast majority of war opposition.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 05-30-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

1. There is a systematic exaggeration of the fascizing processes occurring in our country as a result of war. (NSA, Gitmo, Patriot Act)

Or maybe some of us wonder why all these extra measures are needed when, before 9/11, there was enough information to stop at least part of it. True, that information was spread among many people in many organizations, but it was there.

And you also forgot to mention that other factors are causing many to question actions, such as the failure to find WMD's. The fact that real prisoner abuse did happen and was downplayed by many defending Gitmo. Said abuse did cause a large blow to our anti-terror efforts.

There is also the fact the NSA, from all accounts, has always held US citizens as off limits. That they were only to monitor foreign information. Going from "off limits" to "ok in these cases" is a huge step. It is like if your spouse said "I only had a little bit of sex with that other person".

I know you don't mind the extra surveillance but for some it was a shock that you cannot fathom. Just as swingers don't mind the occasional stepping out on a deeply faithful person would be torn apart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

2. The actual record of these Islamic movements and terror organizations, especially its pre-war history is ignored or pooh-poohed as propaganda. Discussion of what the world would actually be like if they dominated it is evaded.

This I have never seen. Ok, I have no doubt some fringe groups (that actually are pacifists) do ignore the actions of the terrorists. But there are fringe groups that also believe Elvis really is God.

What I have seen is that some believe American actions have contributed to the terrorists behavior. Not only the US Pro-Israeli and middle eastern policies either. There also was the bolstering of Saddam in his early days. I do not know if we supported him during his war with Iran but we defiantly didn't do anything to stop it. Likewise our lack of action after the first gulf war while he terrorized his own people using helicopters we gave him permission to control adds to the complete story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

3. Those who want to struggle against Islamic terror are accused of being wholehearted defenders of capitalist ‘democracy’ (blood for oil).

It is hard to ignore the fact that we invaded Iraq for reasons that turned out to be plain false. (WMD's and terrorist support by the state.) So it turned into "Free Iraq from a dictator". While Saddam is bad, there are much more evil places in the world that we could have invaded easier and saved more lives.

It is also true that there are countries that pose a greater risk but do not have any resources we desire (Korea).

Ok, I agree with you. I do not believe for one second that those who made the decision did it for oil. But I have no doubt that some who did influence the decisions did have their eyes on cheep oil. This cannot be ignored when coming to conclusions. And it is easy to understand why individuals would question the administration when they made such huge mistakes and failed to admit those mistakes for so long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

4. It is tacitly pretended that the war is really only between Israel and Islam, and the USA has blundered between them with its aggressive posture. Mention of European, Middle Eastern states, Russia, and their fate if Islamic terror is permitted to win, is avoided.

You are kinda right here. There isn't much talk about what would happen if Islamic Terror is permitted to win. I think this is mainly due to the fact nobody has ever talked about "letting Islamic Terrorists win". And there also very few people that think that these particular terrorists have even a remote chance of actually taking over anything outside a country such as Afghanistan. Even the terrorists don't think they have a chance of taking over, otherwise they wouldn't be terrorists, they would be an army.

What I have heard through the BBC and a couple other foreign news sources is that some in those countries you mentioned fear that US actions are making the terrorists stronger and are moving some states away from pro-western thinking. Thus increasing the likelihood of a real army being born. Many feel Iran is pursuing it's current goals only because of US actions. Not because they are afraid of the US but because the Saddam lead Iraq is gone making them free to expand their power. They can now use the majority Shiites in Iraq for their own purposes. And the all the crazy talk by their crazy president is ignored, or at least not brought up, by moderates in the region because many others have become so anti-US.

In the end do not forget that the text you point out said that both types of propaganda is evil. Many of the statements in these forums, if considered in their isolation, could be considered propaganda. That is only due to what propaganda is. It cannot be all lies and the most effective of it is all truth. But only the part of truth that supports the cause.

The one thing I cannot figure out about those whose blood curdle when anything even remotely negative about the war in Iraq is mentioned is: when are we to discuss what is going on? It certainly wasn't done before the war. Before the war everybody was terrified of "what might happen next" or even "what will other think of me!" So most blindly gave the president anything he asked for. So now war is on. We can't question or speak out about it during war because then we are providing aid and support to the enemy. And as time goes on the War has morphed from Osama and his followers to the new Axis of Evil to Saddam to terrorism in general.

Terrorism is never going to end. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever.

Are you saying we can never again question our government?

05-30-2006, 01:08 PM	#17 (permalink)
Diceman Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Yellowknife, NT Age: 30 Posts: 986	Re: Pacifism and the War I read the essay - the whole thing seems to revovle on accepting as premise the notion that failing to aid party A is, in actuality, aiding party B. I don't think it is that simple, the facist tendances of Comfort, Savage and Woodcock aside. A corresponding argument, and one that is by no means closed (and it relates nicely to Cing's Moral Murder thread), is the question of whether there is a difference between killing and letting die. Without getting into the killing vs. letting-die argument, I think there is a difference. I also think there is a difference between fighting in a war and not fighting in a war. I believe that it is an attempt to over-simplify a situation, when trying to reduce something as complex as the activities of many millions of individuals into a simple binary relationship. That, and the fact that Orwell seems to spend most of his time writing specifically to his detractors and less time to an audience at large. I feel as though I've come into a conversation a few hours too late. Edit: Yes, Zoolander is hilarious. Highly recommended. Gasoline fights, on the other hand, ought to be avoided. __________________ [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1] [ma-c2][taw-c1] Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette: Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due. Treat others as you would have them treat you

05-30-2006, 01:42 PM	#20 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Pacifism and the War So when people are murdered in Europe over some cartoons, this makes you think that radical Islam will be happy to sit on its sand to live and let live?

05-30-2006, 01:49 PM	#21 (permalink)
Diceman Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Yellowknife, NT Age: 30 Posts: 986	Re: Pacifism and the War For the record, because I see this discussion going in a different direction, Orwell was speaking about pacifism. Opposition to the Americans in Iraq, or any other specific battle, is not pacifism, per se. __________________ [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1] [ma-c2][taw-c1] Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette: Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due. Treat others as you would have them treat you

05-30-2006, 01:52 PM	#22 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Pacifism and the War I think, per se, it accomplishes the same negative effect - helping the enemy - as pacifism. In fact, though, the opposition to the Americans in Iraq hasn't been based so much on the position that we SHOULD be in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Syria as it has been based on the position that the USA ought to adopt a less aggressive posture, which in any practical terms is pacifism.

05-30-2006, 02:02 PM	#24 (permalink)
Diceman Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Yellowknife, NT Age: 30 Posts: 986	Re: Pacifism and the War Stealing and transmitting top secret documents would be helping the enemy. But that is not equivalent to thinking that the Iraq campaign is wrong, for whatever reason (be it morally, diplomatically or strategically). And thinking that Iraq is wrong doesn't make one a pacifist, even though a pacificist and an otherwise-motivated dissenter would share that one particular view. Politics makes for strange bed-fellows, and all that. I still believe that the suggested equality is an oversimplification to a false dichotomy. __________________ [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1] [ma-c2][taw-c1] Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette: Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due. Treat others as you would have them treat you Last edited by Diceman; 05-30-2006 at 02:57 PM.

05-30-2006, 02:52 PM	#26 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Pacifism and the War Opposition to war also comes in the form of tactical or strategic discussion. Being able to choose the most appropriate response to an aggressor, threat, or potential threat is key to good governance. __________________

05-30-2006, 03:39 PM	#29 (permalink)
Diceman Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Yellowknife, NT Age: 30 Posts: 986	Re: Pacifism and the War I think Gringo's (and Orwell's, incidentally) point is that pacifism is characterized by Ghandi and MLK - not so much by the vast majority of war opposition. __________________ [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1] [ma-c2][taw-c1] Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette: Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due. Treat others as you would have them treat you

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links