<!--QuoteBegin--Flayra+Mar 21 2003, 05:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Flayra @ Mar 21 2003, 05:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Great posts Immacolata, I find myself nodding to nearly everything you say. MonsE, your knowledge astounds.
Don't forget! You can hate Bush and be pro this war! Bush is a slimeball that appears to be motivated for personal revenge and money. However, he's doing the right thing here...even if it may be for the wrong reasons.
Lefties (including me I guess): fight for human rights, don't find Bush's evillness. Which is more important? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well it is mostly my own synthezitaions of the salon article. Thanks a lot for that link Flayra, I have never read such a wake up call to the leftists before. Here in Denmark our pathetic left wing can't look beyond their own navels and complain loudly about the war, they have gone blind. I must say that the piece where he describe the spanish civil war against fascism made me realize, that once the left wing believed in Fighting for Freedom and against oppression. This seems to have evaporated in today's conformist left wing thinkers. They are conservatives!
Saddam Hussein is in his Intent just as Evil as Stalin and Hitler. And frankly I think he is stark raving mad! But the big difference is that he hasn't accomplished on the same large scale as those two fellows managed to. Luckily for us, he only managed to maim two of his neighbouring countries and his own population. In reality he's a small potato. There was a wise judge in Denmark who recently answered a question on what Evil was. He basically asked if one would look for Evil intent or Evil doings. Which is a thought provoking way to look at it. What matters most? Your intentions or your deeds? Even if Bush & Co. has the most despicable and self serving intentions in the world - I am being hypothetical here because I don't know what they're thinking - their deeds will actually (if we are lucky and nothing goes wrong) lead to 24 mio. iraqis getting a MUCH BETTER LIFE! And what is better, USA is so far paying the bill. Unless the world economy is going into the gutter, but I think it managed to do so very well on it's own effort already. So what do I have to lose except a reason to be fuming mad? Nothing frankly. I don't even put MY arse on the line.
The plan with establishing a protectorate in Iraq after the war, comparable to the one in Japan, is the best solution possible now that war is running. The big question is how the iraqis will react to it. I sense the little man on the floor won't mind one bit, whereas all those who lucrated on the existing system will hate it and try to fight it.The great vision for this would be most of the world's countries turning into democracies. Maybe the 21st century will not be the century of Computers and Informations, but of War for Democracy. That's true leftist old skool utopianism <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Regarding the SFGate article on democracy in the middle east. I agree on the points made, a new regime in Iraq will not turn every neighbour into a democracy with a dash of the magic democrat wand. Each country has strongly founded regimes (bar a few unstable one, but they're risking one kind of dictatorship to another even worse). Only revolutions of the violent kind will shake the regimes in those countries, their inertia towards their current ways of rulership is too large frankly. Too many has too much to lose by it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek+Mar 21 2003, 08:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek @ Mar 21 2003, 08:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem I see when you try and say the war is justified for humanitarian reason is that there are much worse places on earth that the U.S. is doing precisely jack about. See my earlier reference to machete massacres going on in Africa right now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well we can't keep demanding that USA do everything to ALL things at once. It's like demanding the complete socialist notion of all are equal and should be given equal rights. Either we get all problems solved now or no one will ever get anything done. It's unrealistic. Why Iraq? I cannot say, but what if they started in Korea instead? Probably have china all over them in a split second. And True War. Not just this little local conflagraration in Iraq. It's wise to test your mettle as the revigorated Policeman of the world on a fairly simple case as Iraq. Instead of starting out by taking on the toughest cookie in the cookie jar right away and choke on the crumbs.
The really sad thing is if it stops here. If EU splits into bickering nations again and are paralyzed, and if USA stops with Iraq and won't pursue an active and somewhat pushy foreign policy towards Democracy Everywhere. I believe in that will be the best for all the world's citizens. Well ok, there are many countries with monarchs or dictatorships that aren't so bad that we could consciously say that a outright war would be fair. But what ever happens, I hope USA will stop creating more monsters like Pinochet, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein (yeah, CIA invention). Probably more than those - the contra's in Nicaragua, and that Noriega fellow. Thats clearly the wrong way of doing it.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 21 2003, 03:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 21 2003, 03:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you read that whole article, you get this final quote (one of the few times I can agree with a litteral bush statement):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush has responded to such assessments by assailing the "soft bigotry of low expectations." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i.e. 'Those dumb darkies aren't smart enough to be democratic' is what your paper says. Pure racism, nothing more. Well, after decades of continuous warfare and some of the most barabaric behavior in the history of the human race, plus an absence of democracy in their society for the better part of 2000 years, both Germany and Japan are now model citizens. Feel free to explain.
As for the ridiculus attitude that the US doesn't do enough for humanitarianism elsewhere, so we aren't allowed to do it here, I say: get hot making a difference. We can't be everywhere at once, but we're working on it. Although it willl just be classified it as imperialism at that point. I am especially intersted in hearing about what place on earth is worse for human rights than Iraq, considering that once you become a land of imprisonment and torture of olympic athletes for losing a soccer game, saying somewhere is is worse is 100% subjective. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't bother playing the "RACCIST!!!!11!" when it would be infinately more credible for me to assault "The White Man's Burden" that we have to go in and change it for them because they'll improve on their own. Both positions are stupid strawmen that'll only get in the way of a reasonable debate.
It's just not reasonable to expect the extreme degree of change overnight. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with human nature. This isn't some liberal think tank belting out a paper here <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The report was produced by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the in-house analytical arm<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the Japan and Germany issue I'm going to link to <a href='http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/031903.aspx' target='_blank'>this paper</a> by John Marshall. It outlines some key differences between the sittuations then and now. Given the currect administrations stated distain for nation building it dowsn't make me very hopeful for the future of Iraq. When you've got the country split three ways between group that all hate each other's guts then sudden and immediate democracy is going to have some problems.
And to those of you who think that there won't be any anti-american sentiment afterwards, well you're being hopelessly naive.
<!--QuoteBegin--Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek+Mar 21 2003, 10:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek @ Mar 21 2003, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And to those of you who think that there won't be any anti-american sentiment afterwards, well you're being hopelessly naive. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I, for one, do not think so. I believe there will be more than ever. Also in Iraq because some feel more uncomfortable under a new regime than under the old one.
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 21 2003, 03:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 21 2003, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Regarding the SFGate article on democracy in the middle east. I agree on the points made, a new regime in Iraq will not turn every neighbour into a democracy with a dash of the magic democrat wand. Each country has strongly founded regimes (bar a few unstable one, but they're risking one kind of dictatorship to another even worse). Only revolutions of the violent kind will shake the regimes in those countries, their inertia towards their current ways of rulership is too large frankly. Too many has too much to lose by it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course changing goverment is a hard task. We have gone threw a great depression and a civil war to get where the US is today. Germany and Japan had to rebuilt. People in russia can probably relate that becoming a democracy isint gonna happen over night.
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 21 2003, 03:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 21 2003, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, you're wrong about that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> AGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....
Dude, are you planning on discussing or debating or anything? Answering questions with questions, or simple 'no' statements does not make for a lively discussion. WTH does this even mean? If you don't have an answer to something, just don't say anything. You're driving me insane!!!
/rant over
On to Psycho, who is at least making an attempt to argue his points. No one is saying their won't be incidents or groups of people that don't like American occupation or short-term protectoracy (word?). I rather imagine that everyone from Saddam's hometown that he draws on for fanatic staff won't be too thrilled about it. Neither will former officers in the Republican Guard. Or crazy religious wackos (which thankfully Iraq is not heavy on, unlike most mideast countries). Remember - I am the 'no absolutes' guy. Repeat after MonsE - 'It's not black and white. There are no absolutes.' It's my main argument with fanatical anti-war rhetoric if no one's noticed, the mindless zombie droning of 'war is ALWAYS wrong and NOTHING good comes of it'.
As for pulling the racist card, it certainly is to some extent. You should read those same papers on American feelings about Japan and what McArthur went through as the military governer to overcome then. But saying 'the areas have never had democracy so they never will' is perfectly retarded thinking. Not that you can expect less from the same state department that's gotten us into all these situations like underwriting Iraq in the late 70's. If there's one thing the US is not known for, it's a capable state dept, so I don't know why we're giving these hacks and their paper any credibility. Out of all of the mideast arab countries, Iraq is the closest one to a secular state (only because dictators are too jealous to allow other gods); it's a good candidate for conversion to the 18th century, up from its current 8th century. And democracies breed nearby democracy - eastern europe is a prime example. To say otherwise is to ignore history; there are far more democratic states today than there have ever been in history. They have to be converting from something...
Im not saying that they never will have democracy, Im saying that introducing it all at once would be disasterous and the other option of having a US guided dictatorship would be equally disasterous. The best plan, which it may be too late for, is to use the obvious eagerness of the Bush administation to move militarily to force democratic reforms in the government combined with gradual lowering of sanctions. Since that seems a remote possibility at this point all I can do is hope that the situation doesn't get too godawful and as little blood is shed.
<!--QuoteBegin--Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek+Mar 21 2003, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek @ Mar 21 2003, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> is to use the obvious eagerness of the Bush administation to move militarily to force democratic reforms in the government combined with gradual lowering of sanctions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So you just want a prolonged war then?
Dude, are you planning on discussing or debating or anything? Answering questions with questions, or simple 'no' statements does not make for a lively discussion. WTH does this even mean? If you don't have an answer to something, just don't say anything. You're driving me insane!!!
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If I may quote you:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, after decades of continuous warfare and some of the most barabaric behavior in the history of the human race, plus an absence of democracy in their society for the better part of 2000 years, both Germany and Japan are now model citizens. Feel free to explain<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You call this a 'discussion'? Throwing in some absurd pseudo-facts which I've heard about 1000 times in US media and from US politicians? Note that Germany had a relatively high civilised society when Americans were still enslaving black people. The 15 years of the Weimar Republic had a more liberal democracy than the USA ever had in their entire history.
I really do not feel like 'debating' some buzzwords and phrases which you catch up in the US media and which you tend to repeat over and over again. I would really like to hear YOUR opinion. YOUR view on those events and not the mainstream view of the US society. When reading your posts I can't see anything that would clearly show that it is Mr. Evil who wrote this and not any other US citizen!
Now in regards to democracy in Iraq: How will this 'democracy' look like? Like in Afghanistan, Panama, Puerto Rico, or any other 'liberated' country? Meaning a corrupt governor without any back up from the people but with the back-up of the USA, a marionette of the powerful West acting for the sake of them only, and not for the sake of its own people? Like, for example, in the whole of Latin America (remeber the crisis in Argentine) or in parts of Asia (remember the Asian crisis). I can understand that the Arabs do not want to have a US-imposed pseudo-democracy which only serves for the capital-outflow from their country. Surely, this democracy will be better than the Hussein-regime. But occupation instead of oppression MUST NOT be an option, as I stated before already. Moreover, the USA claiming that Saddam Hussein is decieving the UN, yet doing the same. Not very credible, isn't it?
You say anti-war rhetoric is fanatical, yet I see a horrendous glorification of war, of military warfare, of destruction on US media. I would say that <i>this</i> is fanatism. Bombing one of the oldest cities of humanity with the most powerful bombs humanity has ever seen can not be justified in any way. "OMG Saddam is evil!", you might say, but that does not justify this barbaric crime which is immoral, illegal and irresponsible. Fight fire with fire. Liberate the people by bombing them. Pave the way for justice by commiting crimes.
No, I cannot and will not agree on that.
Now <i>discuss</i> with your own words please, and do not just say "No, Saddam is evil you fanatic ignorant!"
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You call this a 'discussion'? Throwing in some absurd pseudo-facts which I've heard about 1000 times in US media and from US politicians? Note that Germany had a relatively high civilised society when Americans were still enslaving black people. The 15 years of the Weimar Republic had a more liberal democracy than the USA ever had in their entire history. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bombing one of the oldest cities of humanity with the most powerful bombs humanity has ever seen can not be justified in any way. "OMG Saddam is evil!", you might say, but that does not justify this barbaric crime which is immoral, illegal and irresponsible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So wait Germany is a highly civilized society while the people in Iraq comming from the fertile cresent remenants of Islamic empire and the Ottoman empire as well is not as civilized? You know while Germans were wallowing in feces in the dark ages killing Jews and Heretics left in right countries the Islamic empire had the most civil rights for its people.
What precisely in my quote is not fact? In the last 2000 years, Germany and Japan have only experienced very brief, recent amounts of democracy. Some would argue with Japan that before the end of WW2, they never had any at all. Certianly with Germany their experiences prior to to WW1 were quite minimal. So there is fact. Now where is your argument that Japanese and German actions in WW2 were anything short of barabaric? Germans gassing millions of Jews and undesirables. Japan Gassing and infecting thousands of chinese. Japan Torturing and executing thousands of american POW's. Where are my facts 'pseudo'? I am not talking about media-supplied history coverage, which is fairly obvious, as the modern media cannot seem to remember anythign older than 5 years ago usually.
As for your references to Afghanistan, Puerto Rico, and Pananma, they clearly show you have not bothered to do any research at all. Puerto Rico is completely democratic and operates as a US protectorate purely of it's own will (mostly because they get all the benefits of US support with no US taxation, rather a sweet deal). They even have annual votes for statehood or independence, which fail every time. Panama is an independent country that we have no control of, so you are confused. Afghanistan has the closest thing to a government of law and civil rights right now than in the last 30 years certainly, and probably much longer.
I am still waiting for your alternate suggestion to how to free the iraqi people and prevent them from merely being oppressed by saddam's sons when he dies. Or his staff. What do you suggest be done to free those people from oppression, I really want to know. Show me the millions of dead from US bombing raids. The destruction of their food, water, elecetricity, livliehood, or anything really - except that filthy 'government' that keeps them under a boot. The men who fought the fascists in the Spanish Civil War must be spinning in their graves right now as people deign to call themselves Leftists then decry any action that ends oppression with force. If you see a man raping a woman in the street, would you attack him? You are using force to end a crime - isn't that what your whole argument is against?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Surely, this democracy will be better than the Hussein-regime<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to lock this thread now. Everyone, please note the 'no insulting of other peoples education' rule.
[edit]OK, OK. Go on discussing, but do me a favor - make Mons eat his words <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> [/edit]
And I am going to re-open it, as I don't think anyone has had their education insulted yet. I'll wait for Nem to get back from dinner to debate me on this point.
I'm sorry for getting into the debate at this late a point - I just didn't have the time nor patience to throw myself in yet another shark pool.
Anyway, a really great article, but as much as I agree with some of its points, as much I oppose some others.
Allow me first to go into semantics and question Mr. Lempinens use of the word 'leftists' and the implicated assumption that the biggest part of them is opposing any war at any cost. Who does he mean with those leftists? Does he mean socialists and communists like Zergling, who're waiting for the begin of the (violent) revolution? Does he mean liberal progressives like Dezdemonium, who defends his right to own guns (I would've never thought I'd ever use this as a point in my arguments favor...)? Does he mean people like Joschka Fischer, German minister of foreign affairs, Green, and convinced pacifist, who however advocated the 'war' against Milosevic? Does he mean me, a pacifist who believes violence to be unjustified even for self-defense, provided no lethal aggression comes into play (and I've <i>been</i> in bone-breaker situations, so don't think about calling me hypocritical), and nonetheless doesn't believe that wars are always evitable?
The truth is that the biggest part of the anti-warers, as long as they're even left, don't oppose war, they oppose <i>this</i> war.
This does of course not touch the validity of the dilemma the author draws:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The implicit assumption of the post-Vietnam culture is that pacifism always holds the moral high ground. But in the Iraq conundrum, there is no high ground, no moral purity. If you argue for war, on humanitarian grounds, you are saying: We must risk thousands of casualties not only among soldiers, but among children and civilians, so that Saddam's weapons can be destroyed and his murderous system of repression can be dismantled. If you argue that war is to be avoided because of those potential casualties, then you are arguing that Saddam's system of repression -- the political murders, the torture chambers, the slow death of the soul that comes from living under such tyranny -- must be endured.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's clearly obvious that none of these options can at any moment be considered satisfacting, and based on this 'either..or' choice, it's understandeable to advocate a war against an evil tyrant as Hussein is one. I could now start adding the cited 'but' and start arguing why even the end of this tyranny will not mean an end to the oppression of the Iraqi people, and back this with prove about the inherently greedy and unscrupulus nature of the current US administration, the unstable political-militaric framework of the Middle East, the influence of the fundamentalistic far right on parts of the Iraqi population, and the lack of a solid democratic scene to take over in a 'liberated' Iraq, but I'll save this for the appropriate thread and stay on the philiosphic-theoretical level of the article (<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->).
So let's take a look at Mr. Lempinens brilliant introduction, specifically at this paragraph:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can imagine many leftists would share the same urge, and yet, the more deeply I consider it, the more complicated the problem becomes. First of all, why Amina? Why not any of a million other victims of tyranny, including many in our own country who are threatened with cruel and unusual punishment? If you start with Amina, where does it stop? We can't solve all the problems of the world. And perhaps intervening to save Amina will only incite the furies of the Nigerian Muslims who rose so violently in the days before the Miss Universe pageant. We have to let the Nigerians solve their own problems. Violence, in the long term, will only beget more violence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He pretty much sums the main issue of our time up here: The Western World, although clearly dominating the globe, although unsurpassed on militaristic, economic, and, as we like to think, social and cultural ground, is indeed in a way impotent to react on threats to the high standards it imposed onto itself and the rest of the world. This has various reasons, such as the common lack of understanding for foreign ethnic structures that've grown within millenia (and were disturbed and stirred up by 'us'), 'our' own interests, be they economically, strategically, or politically, or the plain mistrust and hate our part of the world worked the last five centuries to achieve. The fact does however remain - no matter how awesome 'our' powers, we can't save a single woman without of setting off social explosives that may leave whole parts of the world burning. A thought that can rob you sleep and sanity, but still the truth.
This issue isn't new, it's only become more and more pressing with the population of the Western World taking the ideals of its region more and more seriously, and escalated after the loss and integration of the old big enemy, which made those ideals neglectable in favor of success.
Nowadays, we face horrible situations our governments or their precessors helped create, and the question of our time is, at least according to this article, how to react on them.
Mr. Lempinen sees two major reactions on this point: On the one hand, those who decide to defend the humanistic ideals, come what may come, and on the other hand, those who oppose militaristic confrontation and rather decide for a kind of 'splendid isolation' of the Western World, which then can only hope to achieve these ideals within itself.
Now, I may suffer a mild messianic complex, but I'm not arrogant enough to speak for 'the Lefts' here, so I'll give you 'a Lefts' opinion, namely, mine.
To me, the author sees the two Cold War - reaction patterns, and applies them to a time where they just don't fit anymore. Hard-pressed 'come what may pacifism' may indeed be conservative (in fact, it was a conservative sentiment from day one), but the assumption that the interventions of the 90s did indeed change something for the better is just as wrong.
Let me take the Kosovo, which I'm a little better informed about than the rest, as example.
Yes, the joint air strikes of US and European states did indeed manage to halt the ethnic cleansing Milosevic was commiting on Albans, but what happened afterwards? Nowadays, pretty much no Serbian lives in the Kosovo anymore. The UcK, a fundamentalist militia the Western World chose as its ally during its righteous rage about Milosevics atrocies, became pretty much the secret ruler about the Kosovo that's by law under UN administration, and started its very own ethinc cleansing, which the UN troops can barely stop, because the UcK was promoted to be part of the police force, and because the now returning Alban majority regards the UcK as heroes and supports them wherever possible. I, and I'm sure many others, fear that we'll see similiar horrible things happening after the alleged liberation of the Iraq.
Would it have been better to keep out of the Kosovo? F*ck, no. But in reverse, if we had, I could say just the same thing about whether it would have been better to assault Milosevics troops.
The sad truth is that we, the inhabitants of the Western World, are badly prepared for this new era. Our governments are crooked, our militaries are prepared to fight huge masses of Soviets - but not grim fourteen years olds with AKs, and we ourselves are, I agree with Lempinen here, barely prepared for the morallic issues of our time. Additionally, the people we want to help aren't, either.
So, in this moment, I turn to history and search for analogies. There, I do not find solutions - we, no matter whether progressive or conservative, have to admit that we don't know the solutions - but I find examples. I find out about Mahatma Ghandi, who fought against the biggest occupant power of his time without of killing a single person, and who managed to bridge the ethinc gap between Muslims and Hindus. I find out about Martin Luther King, who showed us how to change oursevles for a new time without of shedding blood. I find out about the people of Eastern Germany, who, although just as human and errenous as we all, managed to overcome a stalinist regime with the worst secret police of its time and the highest soldier-population ratio since Sparta, and did not kill a <i>single</i> one of them in the process. I find out that when in doubt, it's always better to search for a peaceful way. Does that mean that I can provide a way for stopping all humanitarian catastrophees without of bloodshed? Does that mean that I can oppose any war? No, but it means that I can oppose <i>this</i> war.
Fair 'nuf? I apologize for the earlier incorrect (as highlighted by your disertation above) generalization. Now please send more of these tough Leftists over to my house to plan overthrows of dictators.
(And I have been involved in a home-invasion during my days as a poor student living in a cheap garden apartment in a bad part of chicago. I can assure you that I applied an appropriate anount of force - I have the scars on my left arm to prove it when I drove through a half-open window in my chase of said invader. Unlike your way, my way kept a burglar off the street for a couple years and in country jail. So you can see my take on it.).
They're on their way, BTW. Go and buy shampoo <b>now</b> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And as for your intervention, it might suprise you to hear that I, being raised by two people working in the justice system, would have probably reacted quite similiarily - throwing yourself on a burglar and pinning him down is well within my definition of 'pacifism'. Yes, it's a stretchy little term.
jeez, those two seem to love this forum more than I love fan-fic... thats my two cents, I'm not even going to attempt to engage in this discussion
a) I'm late in posting and I've got to go to work in 30 min and can't read all the posts b)Nem and MonsE have done more than enough discussion on this topic to make up for me. c) the image was created by Fam (plagarism is bad)
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
ah wh@ the hell, what have I to lose?
(in my every valued oppinion) Violence is acceptable sometimes, when all other options have been exausted, and MonsE's example of tackling said perp, thats one of them. Violence can also be used when they refuse to listen to logic and need to be show that they aren't as tough as they think they are but I tend to avoid fighting unless it's absolutely necessary, in my last fight I bite some poor bloke to death (wonder what he could be referring to <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Comments
Don't forget! You can hate Bush and be pro this war! Bush is a slimeball that appears to be motivated for personal revenge and money. However, he's doing the right thing here...even if it may be for the wrong reasons.
Lefties (including me I guess): fight for human rights, don't find Bush's evillness. Which is more important? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it is mostly my own synthezitaions of the salon article. Thanks a lot for that link Flayra, I have never read such a wake up call to the leftists before. Here in Denmark our pathetic left wing can't look beyond their own navels and complain loudly about the war, they have gone blind. I must say that the piece where he describe the spanish civil war against fascism made me realize, that once the left wing believed in Fighting for Freedom and against oppression. This seems to have evaporated in today's conformist left wing thinkers. They are conservatives!
Saddam Hussein is in his Intent just as Evil as Stalin and Hitler. And frankly I think he is stark raving mad! But the big difference is that he hasn't accomplished on the same large scale as those two fellows managed to. Luckily for us, he only managed to maim two of his neighbouring countries and his own population. In reality he's a small potato. There was a wise judge in Denmark who recently answered a question on what Evil was. He basically asked if one would look for Evil intent or Evil doings. Which is a thought provoking way to look at it. What matters most? Your intentions or your deeds? Even if Bush & Co. has the most despicable and self serving intentions in the world - I am being hypothetical here because I don't know what they're thinking - their deeds will actually (if we are lucky and nothing goes wrong) lead to 24 mio. iraqis getting a MUCH BETTER LIFE! And what is better, USA is so far paying the bill. Unless the world economy is going into the gutter, but I think it managed to do so very well on it's own effort already. So what do I have to lose except a reason to be fuming mad? Nothing frankly. I don't even put MY arse on the line.
The plan with establishing a protectorate in Iraq after the war, comparable to the one in Japan, is the best solution possible now that war is running. The big question is how the iraqis will react to it. I sense the little man on the floor won't mind one bit, whereas all those who lucrated on the existing system will hate it and try to fight it.The great vision for this would be most of the world's countries turning into democracies. Maybe the 21st century will not be the century of Computers and Informations, but of War for Democracy. That's true leftist old skool utopianism <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Regarding the SFGate article on democracy in the middle east. I agree on the points made, a new regime in Iraq will not turn every neighbour into a democracy with a dash of the magic democrat wand. Each country has strongly founded regimes (bar a few unstable one, but they're risking one kind of dictatorship to another even worse). Only revolutions of the violent kind will shake the regimes in those countries, their inertia towards their current ways of rulership is too large frankly. Too many has too much to lose by it.
Well we can't keep demanding that USA do everything to ALL things at once. It's like demanding the complete socialist notion of all are equal and should be given equal rights. Either we get all problems solved now or no one will ever get anything done. It's unrealistic. Why Iraq? I cannot say, but what if they started in Korea instead? Probably have china all over them in a split second. And True War. Not just this little local conflagraration in Iraq. It's wise to test your mettle as the revigorated Policeman of the world on a fairly simple case as Iraq. Instead of starting out by taking on the toughest cookie in the cookie jar right away and choke on the crumbs.
The really sad thing is if it stops here. If EU splits into bickering nations again and are paralyzed, and if USA stops with Iraq and won't pursue an active and somewhat pushy foreign policy towards Democracy Everywhere. I believe in that will be the best for all the world's citizens. Well ok, there are many countries with monarchs or dictatorships that aren't so bad that we could consciously say that a outright war would be fair. But what ever happens, I hope USA will stop creating more monsters like Pinochet, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein (yeah, CIA invention). Probably more than those - the contra's in Nicaragua, and that Noriega fellow. Thats clearly the wrong way of doing it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush has responded to such assessments by assailing the "soft bigotry of low expectations." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i.e. 'Those dumb darkies aren't smart enough to be democratic' is what your paper says. Pure racism, nothing more. Well, after decades of continuous warfare and some of the most barabaric behavior in the history of the human race, plus an absence of democracy in their society for the better part of 2000 years, both Germany and Japan are now model citizens. Feel free to explain.
As for the ridiculus attitude that the US doesn't do enough for humanitarianism elsewhere, so we aren't allowed to do it here, I say: get hot making a difference. We can't be everywhere at once, but we're working on it. Although it willl just be classified it as imperialism at that point. I am especially intersted in hearing about what place on earth is worse for human rights than Iraq, considering that once you become a land of imprisonment and torture of olympic athletes for losing a soccer game, saying somewhere is is worse is 100% subjective. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't bother playing the "RACCIST!!!!11!" when it would be infinately more credible for me to assault "The White Man's Burden" that we have to go in and change it for them because they'll improve on their own. Both positions are stupid strawmen that'll only get in the way of a reasonable debate.
It's just not reasonable to expect the extreme degree of change overnight. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with human nature. This isn't some liberal think tank belting out a paper here
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The report was produced by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the in-house analytical arm<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the Japan and Germany issue I'm going to link to <a href='http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/031903.aspx' target='_blank'>this paper</a> by John Marshall. It outlines some key differences between the sittuations then and now. Given the currect administrations stated distain for nation building it dowsn't make me very hopeful for the future of Iraq. When you've got the country split three ways between group that all hate each other's guts then sudden and immediate democracy is going to have some problems.
And to those of you who think that there won't be any anti-american sentiment afterwards, well you're being hopelessly naive.
I, for one, do not think so. I believe there will be more than ever. Also in Iraq because some feel more uncomfortable under a new regime than under the old one.
Of course changing goverment is a hard task. We have gone threw a great depression and a civil war to get where the US is today. Germany and Japan had to rebuilt. People in russia can probably relate that becoming a democracy isint gonna happen over night.
AGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....
Dude, are you planning on discussing or debating or anything? Answering questions with questions, or simple 'no' statements does not make for a lively discussion. WTH does this even mean? If you don't have an answer to something, just don't say anything. You're driving me insane!!!
/rant over
On to Psycho, who is at least making an attempt to argue his points. No one is saying their won't be incidents or groups of people that don't like American occupation or short-term protectoracy (word?). I rather imagine that everyone from Saddam's hometown that he draws on for fanatic staff won't be too thrilled about it. Neither will former officers in the Republican Guard. Or crazy religious wackos (which thankfully Iraq is not heavy on, unlike most mideast countries). Remember - I am the 'no absolutes' guy. Repeat after MonsE - 'It's not black and white. There are no absolutes.' It's my main argument with fanatical anti-war rhetoric if no one's noticed, the mindless zombie droning of 'war is ALWAYS wrong and NOTHING good comes of it'.
As for pulling the racist card, it certainly is to some extent. You should read those same papers on American feelings about Japan and what McArthur went through as the military governer to overcome then. But saying 'the areas have never had democracy so they never will' is perfectly retarded thinking. Not that you can expect less from the same state department that's gotten us into all these situations like underwriting Iraq in the late 70's. If there's one thing the US is not known for, it's a capable state dept, so I don't know why we're giving these hacks and their paper any credibility. Out of all of the mideast arab countries, Iraq is the closest one to a secular state (only because dictators are too jealous to allow other gods); it's a good candidate for conversion to the 18th century, up from its current 8th century. And democracies breed nearby democracy - eastern europe is a prime example. To say otherwise is to ignore history; there are far more democratic states today than there have ever been in history. They have to be converting from something...
Now - <i>discuss</i>. Not just saying 'no'.
So you just want a prolonged war then?
AGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....
Dude, are you planning on discussing or debating or anything? Answering questions with questions, or simple 'no' statements does not make for a lively discussion. WTH does this even mean? If you don't have an answer to something, just don't say anything. You're driving me insane!!!
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I may quote you:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, after decades of continuous warfare and some of the most barabaric behavior in the history of the human race, plus an absence of democracy in their society for the better part of 2000 years, both Germany and Japan are now model citizens. Feel free to explain<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You call this a 'discussion'? Throwing in some absurd pseudo-facts which I've heard about 1000 times in US media and from US politicians? Note that Germany had a relatively high civilised society when Americans were still enslaving black people. The 15 years of the Weimar Republic had a more liberal democracy than the USA ever had in their entire history.
I really do not feel like 'debating' some buzzwords and phrases which you catch up in the US media and which you tend to repeat over and over again. I would really like to hear YOUR opinion. YOUR view on those events and not the mainstream view of the US society. When reading your posts I can't see anything that would clearly show that it is Mr. Evil who wrote this and not any other US citizen!
Now in regards to democracy in Iraq: How will this 'democracy' look like? Like in Afghanistan, Panama, Puerto Rico, or any other 'liberated' country? Meaning a corrupt governor without any back up from the people but with the back-up of the USA, a marionette of the powerful West acting for the sake of them only, and not for the sake of its own people? Like, for example, in the whole of Latin America (remeber the crisis in Argentine) or in parts of Asia (remember the Asian crisis). I can understand that the Arabs do not want to have a US-imposed pseudo-democracy which only serves for the capital-outflow from their country.
Surely, this democracy will be better than the Hussein-regime. But occupation instead of oppression MUST NOT be an option, as I stated before already. Moreover, the USA claiming that Saddam Hussein is decieving the UN, yet doing the same. Not very credible, isn't it?
You say anti-war rhetoric is fanatical, yet I see a horrendous glorification of war, of military warfare, of destruction on US media. I would say that <i>this</i> is fanatism.
Bombing one of the oldest cities of humanity with the most powerful bombs humanity has ever seen can not be justified in any way. "OMG Saddam is evil!", you might say, but that does not justify this barbaric crime which is immoral, illegal and irresponsible.
Fight fire with fire. Liberate the people by bombing them. Pave the way for justice by commiting crimes.
No, I cannot and will not agree on that.
Now <i>discuss</i> with your own words please, and do not just say "No, Saddam is evil you fanatic ignorant!"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bombing one of the oldest cities of humanity with the most powerful bombs humanity has ever seen can not be justified in any way. "OMG Saddam is evil!", you might say, but that does not justify this barbaric crime which is immoral, illegal and irresponsible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So wait Germany is a highly civilized society while the people in Iraq comming from the fertile cresent remenants of Islamic empire and the Ottoman empire as well is not as civilized? You know while Germans were wallowing in feces in the dark ages killing Jews and Heretics left in right countries the Islamic empire had the most civil rights for its people.
So eggmac how would you get rid of Saddam then?
As for your references to Afghanistan, Puerto Rico, and Pananma, they clearly show you have not bothered to do any research at all. Puerto Rico is completely democratic and operates as a US protectorate purely of it's own will (mostly because they get all the benefits of US support with no US taxation, rather a sweet deal). They even have annual votes for statehood or independence, which fail every time. Panama is an independent country that we have no control of, so you are confused. Afghanistan has the closest thing to a government of law and civil rights right now than in the last 30 years certainly, and probably much longer.
I am still waiting for your alternate suggestion to how to free the iraqi people and prevent them from merely being oppressed by saddam's sons when he dies. Or his staff. What do you suggest be done to free those people from oppression, I really want to know. Show me the millions of dead from US bombing raids. The destruction of their food, water, elecetricity, livliehood, or anything really - except that filthy 'government' that keeps them under a boot. The men who fought the fascists in the Spanish Civil War must be spinning in their graves right now as people deign to call themselves Leftists then decry any action that ends oppression with force. If you see a man raping a woman in the street, would you attack him? You are using force to end a crime - isn't that what your whole argument is against?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Surely, this democracy will be better than the Hussein-regime<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you came around to seeing it my way.
[edit]OK, OK. Go on discussing, but do me a favor - make Mons eat his words <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> [/edit]
Anyway, a really great article, but as much as I agree with some of its points, as much I oppose some others.
Allow me first to go into semantics and question Mr. Lempinens use of the word 'leftists' and the implicated assumption that the biggest part of them is opposing any war at any cost. Who does he mean with those leftists?
Does he mean socialists and communists like Zergling, who're waiting for the begin of the (violent) revolution?
Does he mean liberal progressives like Dezdemonium, who defends his right to own guns (I would've never thought I'd ever use this as a point in my arguments favor...)?
Does he mean people like Joschka Fischer, German minister of foreign affairs, Green, and convinced pacifist, who however advocated the 'war' against Milosevic?
Does he mean me, a pacifist who believes violence to be unjustified even for self-defense, provided no lethal aggression comes into play (and I've <i>been</i> in bone-breaker situations, so don't think about calling me hypocritical), and nonetheless doesn't believe that wars are always evitable?
The truth is that the biggest part of the anti-warers, as long as they're even left, don't oppose war, they oppose <i>this</i> war.
This does of course not touch the validity of the dilemma the author draws:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The implicit assumption of the post-Vietnam culture is that pacifism always holds the moral high ground. But in the Iraq conundrum, there is no high ground, no moral purity. If you argue for war, on humanitarian grounds, you are saying: We must risk thousands of casualties not only among soldiers, but among children and civilians, so that Saddam's weapons can be destroyed and his murderous system of repression can be dismantled. If you argue that war is to be avoided because of those potential casualties, then you are arguing that Saddam's system of repression -- the political murders, the torture chambers, the slow death of the soul that comes from living under such tyranny -- must be endured.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's clearly obvious that none of these options can at any moment be considered satisfacting, and based on this 'either..or' choice, it's understandeable to advocate a war against an evil tyrant as Hussein is one.
I could now start adding the cited 'but' and start arguing why even the end of this tyranny will not mean an end to the oppression of the Iraqi people, and back this with prove about the inherently greedy and unscrupulus nature of the current US administration, the unstable political-militaric framework of the Middle East, the influence of the fundamentalistic far right on parts of the Iraqi population, and the lack of a solid democratic scene to take over in a 'liberated' Iraq, but I'll save this for the appropriate thread and stay on the philiosphic-theoretical level of the article (<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->).
So let's take a look at Mr. Lempinens brilliant introduction, specifically at this paragraph:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can imagine many leftists would share the same urge, and yet, the more deeply I consider it, the more complicated the problem becomes. First of all, why Amina? Why not any of a million other victims of tyranny, including many in our own country who are threatened with cruel and unusual punishment? If you start with Amina, where does it stop? We can't solve all the problems of the world. And perhaps intervening to save Amina will only incite the furies of the Nigerian Muslims who rose so violently in the days before the Miss Universe pageant. We have to let the Nigerians solve their own problems. Violence, in the long term, will only beget more violence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He pretty much sums the main issue of our time up here: The Western World, although clearly dominating the globe, although unsurpassed on militaristic, economic, and, as we like to think, social and cultural ground, is indeed in a way impotent to react on threats to the high standards it imposed onto itself and the rest of the world.
This has various reasons, such as the common lack of understanding for foreign ethnic structures that've grown within millenia (and were disturbed and stirred up by 'us'), 'our' own interests, be they economically, strategically, or politically, or the plain mistrust and hate our part of the world worked the last five centuries to achieve. The fact does however remain - no matter how awesome 'our' powers, we can't save a single woman without of setting off social explosives that may leave whole parts of the world burning.
A thought that can rob you sleep and sanity, but still the truth.
This issue isn't new, it's only become more and more pressing with the population of the Western World taking the ideals of its region more and more seriously, and escalated after the loss and integration of the old big enemy, which made those ideals neglectable in favor of success.
Nowadays, we face horrible situations our governments or their precessors helped create, and the question of our time is, at least according to this article, how to react on them.
Mr. Lempinen sees two major reactions on this point: On the one hand, those who decide to defend the humanistic ideals, come what may come, and on the other hand, those who oppose militaristic confrontation and rather decide for a kind of 'splendid isolation' of the Western World, which then can only hope to achieve these ideals within itself.
Now, I may suffer a mild messianic complex, but I'm not arrogant enough to speak for 'the Lefts' here, so I'll give you 'a Lefts' opinion, namely, mine.
To me, the author sees the two Cold War - reaction patterns, and applies them to a time where they just don't fit anymore. Hard-pressed 'come what may pacifism' may indeed be conservative (in fact, it was a conservative sentiment from day one), but the assumption that the interventions of the 90s did indeed change something for the better is just as wrong.
Let me take the Kosovo, which I'm a little better informed about than the rest, as example.
Yes, the joint air strikes of US and European states did indeed manage to halt the ethnic cleansing Milosevic was commiting on Albans, but what happened afterwards?
Nowadays, pretty much no Serbian lives in the Kosovo anymore. The UcK, a fundamentalist militia the Western World chose as its ally during its righteous rage about Milosevics atrocies, became pretty much the secret ruler about the Kosovo that's by law under UN administration, and started its very own ethinc cleansing, which the UN troops can barely stop, because the UcK was promoted to be part of the police force, and because the now returning Alban majority regards the UcK as heroes and supports them wherever possible.
I, and I'm sure many others, fear that we'll see similiar horrible things happening after the alleged liberation of the Iraq.
Would it have been better to keep out of the Kosovo? F*ck, no.
But in reverse, if we had, I could say just the same thing about whether it would have been better to assault Milosevics troops.
The sad truth is that we, the inhabitants of the Western World, are badly prepared for this new era. Our governments are crooked, our militaries are prepared to fight huge masses of Soviets - but not grim fourteen years olds with AKs, and we ourselves are, I agree with Lempinen here, barely prepared for the morallic issues of our time. Additionally, the people we want to help aren't, either.
So, in this moment, I turn to history and search for analogies. There, I do not find solutions - we, no matter whether progressive or conservative, have to admit that we don't know the solutions - but I find examples.
I find out about Mahatma Ghandi, who fought against the biggest occupant power of his time without of killing a single person, and who managed to bridge the ethinc gap between Muslims and Hindus.
I find out about Martin Luther King, who showed us how to change oursevles for a new time without of shedding blood.
I find out about the people of Eastern Germany, who, although just as human and errenous as we all, managed to overcome a stalinist regime with the worst secret police of its time and the highest soldier-population ratio since Sparta, and did not kill a <i>single</i> one of them in the process.
I find out that when in doubt, it's always better to search for a peaceful way. Does that mean that I can provide a way for stopping all humanitarian catastrophees without of bloodshed? Does that mean that I can oppose any war?
No, but it means that I can oppose <i>this</i> war.
[edit]Removed the ridiculous typos.[/edit]
find: 'Left'
replace: 'Unconditional Pacifist Left'
Fair 'nuf? I apologize for the earlier incorrect (as highlighted by your disertation above) generalization. Now please send more of these tough Leftists over to my house to plan overthrows of dictators.
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
(And I have been involved in a home-invasion during my days as a poor student living in a cheap garden apartment in a bad part of chicago. I can assure you that I applied an appropriate anount of force - I have the scars on my left arm to prove it when I drove through a half-open window in my chase of said invader. Unlike your way, my way kept a burglar off the street for a couple years and in country jail. So you can see my take on it.).
They're on their way, BTW. Go and buy shampoo <b>now</b> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And as for your intervention, it might suprise you to hear that I, being raised by two people working in the justice system, would have probably reacted quite similiarily - throwing yourself on a burglar and pinning him down is well within my definition of 'pacifism'. Yes, it's a stretchy little term.
Uhhhh, the cops pulled me off him, minus 5 of his teeth and a broken nose. I was leaving that to the imagination in my previous post, but oh well.
jeez, those two seem to love this forum more than I love fan-fic...
thats my two cents, I'm not even going to attempt to engage in this discussion
a) I'm late in posting and I've got to go to work in 30 min and can't read all the posts
b)Nem and MonsE have done more than enough discussion on this topic to make up for me.
c) the image was created by Fam
(plagarism is bad)
(in my every valued oppinion) Violence is acceptable sometimes, when all other options have been exausted, and MonsE's example of tackling said perp, thats one of them.
Violence can also be used when they refuse to listen to logic and need to be show that they aren't as tough as they think they are
but I tend to avoid fighting unless it's absolutely necessary, in my last fight I bite some poor bloke to death (wonder what he could be referring to <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)