Re JohnR's message. People felt their survival threatened by Pearl Harbor--so WWII undermines the pacifists' argument. IN contrast, there was no threat to US survival from Iraq. US survival was not a reason for a military expedition to Iraq.

The way Iraq undermines the pacifists: We supported Saddam in his war against Iran, so we ourselves were partly responsible for there being a Stalinist dictatorship in Iraq.

That said, replacing Saddam with a dictatorship of Bechtel, Haliburton, and religions extremists was not my idea of fixing the problem.

Is there any way to suggest a change of the person running the guest blog? This guy is in so severely full of himself that I'm getting sick.

Do these ends justify these means?
Do the ends ever justify the means?

For me, it comes down to a question of what the human species is about. Are we about survival, or idealism? Now, I don't consider these concepts to be mutually exclusive, but I don't see how one can argue against the notion that idealism is absolutely moot if survivalism is disregarded. There is no idealism of any sort if there aren't members of our species to propagate our ideals. Hence, my 'oversimplification' of who argues the point if one dies for non-violence.

As an aside, I thought it notable that an apparent atheist was reduced to referring to a couple of Christians to validate his own point in reference to how non-violence memes are propagated by others in the absence of their major advocates. I think there are indeed many Christians who support and believe in pacificism. It's too bad that many atheists (at least the many I have talked to) are too busy dismissing Christians for their flighty beliefs in spiritualism instead of uniting with them on such common grounds as these. (This is not a one-sided criticism; Christians and atheists are capable of equal short-sightedness.)

The point that I think is of importance, however, is that survival is integral to the propagation of the ideas one deems important. In general, for the average person, one will further propagate the ideals and concepts one lives by, by living and talking about them than by dying for them. Even in the example of Jesus and MLK as given above, we spend much more time discussing their teachings and speeches than we do their deaths. We remember their deaths, but we propagate their ideals that they stood for in life.

I also believe that there are some ideas that are counter-survival, both in the sense that adopting them is more likely to lead to one's early demise, and also in the sense that some ideas are counter-survival to their own concept. I cannot prove it, but the evidence I have thus far encountered suggests to me that pacifism is among this class of ideas. Non-violence in the face of a violent advance is likely to result in the death of the non-violent; if it does not, the extended result will be the suppression of this idea in the face of others such as subservience, which is certainly not the same as pacifism, but a likely end result. I view either case as less than appetizing, which is why I believe in the (sometimes necessarily violent) defense of personal freedoms.

In his series of questions, Jim addresses the worth of human life without endeavoring to respond to his own ruminations. Yes, it's thoughtful and thought provoking, but it's also a facile criticism of those in authority that offers no real substance or alternative solution. It is very easy to criticize the decisions of others. It is somewhat more difficult to lead and make decisions one's self.

I am forced to dismiss the notion that no one asked for alternate opinions. Cantankerous as it is, the United States provides a world class system for offering (solicited and otherwise) alternative opinions to those in charge. We least fear the reprisals of our government of nearly any nation on the planet for not toeing the party line. Anyone with the stamina is welcome to devote their lives to politics. Anyone who chooses instead to fill a weblog full of pointed questions has voluntarily selected for themselves the role of disinterested bystander, lacking the stomach or inclination to get in and get their hands dirty. (That, of course, goes equally for us, we lurkers of comment threads.) Maybe we're all a bunch of activists besides, but my hunch is that real activists have an extremely limited amount of time to spend fluffing up comment spaces on internet blogs.

It is easy, then, to criticize the decisions of any administration. It is easy to judge at length the actions of those who may have had only a limited amount of time to act. As mistake-prone and as self-serving as I believe our leadership to be, I still assume that at least on some level, they are acting on behalf of the survival of the United States, and for like-minded countries, and for the ideals we say we embrace (i.e. democracy, individual freedoms, and so forth). This assumption is based on this evidence: some laws pass that do make sense; some semblance of law and order, mostly non-oppressive, continues to hold sway in America; we all are currently still allowed to criticize anyone and anything freely; without punishment, at least from the government directly, if not from lawyers and corporations who act mainly on profit motives. (If there were truly no justice, we'd have no legal recourse at all ... proponents of DMCA would just shoot perceived copyright violators on sight.)

If an individual is confronted in an alley by a mugger wielding some form of deadly force, there is only a limited time to formulate a response. Others may second guess that response ad infinitum, even, as we have seen in the news, to the point of legally pursuing victims who choose to defend themselves with the application of deadly counterforce. My opinion is that a mugger who places himself in such a situation has relinquished any rights he may have had, and a potential victim is utterly justified in defending him or herself by whatever means are available. I further believe that this concept applies at any level of human organization.

So, what appears to one person as a walking away with a-shake-of-the-head acceptance, is instead the conclusion of a concrete execution of one's beliefs in abstract, decided on long beforehand. The results of our last war in Iraq are the expected, predictable conclusions of decisions made in this country since its inception. Philosophies developed 200 years ago and more are the principles which have guided us to act the way we do, as a nation, to this day, rightly or wrongly. Freeing a nation of a dictatorship by direct intervention is an execution of the principles we claim to believe in, even at the cost of the lives of innocent, which were forfeit in any event, had we not acted.

In a perfect world, we'd all be working together. I believe the world has the resources to feed every last man, woman and child. I think we have the resources to provide every last person with a sense of well-being and purpose, and that no one needs to die violently. I believe practically all the pain and suffering in the world is caused by personal greed. I think the course of history is changeable, and that a lasting peace can be achieved. But I have no illusions that such a peace can be achieved without fighting for it, and for some of us, by fighting to the death.

Being that we are human, errors will be made. Being that we are human, we may fail.

Edited by author 04-21-2003 10:45 PM
PanteisticAtheist writes:

> A-bombing Hiroshima might have stopped WW2 a couple weeks
> sooner, but is the world really a better place for those
> bombs having been created in the first place?

Are you sure you know what +might+ have happened if we didn't?

The pacifist model breaks when you consider WWII. The aggressor would now be the ruling party, with the pacifist as co-conspirator, willing or not. For fascism to rule, all it takes is a few good people to do nothing. (Voting for Nader a 2nd time counts as ``doing nothing'' in my book).

Another place the code of pacifism breaks is when you did something bad in the past--install a dictator, say, or let one ethnicity beat the crap out of another for years at a time--and then you have the choice of either doing nothing, or going in and trying to fix the problem. Pacifists don't seem to have an answer to that one either.

Pacifists make the reverse mistake of Machiavellians; they think the pacifist means is a solution to every moral end. Like Machiavellians, they fail to recognize that there's no difference between means and ends. So you can be a pacifist, and if that results in fascism, your hands are not clean.

Edited by author 04-20-2003 06:31 PM
Al N ... you wrote regarding John R's statement:
______________________________
"If you believe in a thing like non-violence, who forwards your cause if you die violently for what you believe in?"

John R - Brilliant! I've been wrestling with this Pacifist Conundrum for the better part of a year, and I never saw it put so succinctly. I'll be quoting you, sir!
_______________________________

I'm sorry to have to say that I think you've fallen for a gross simplification as a way out of the apparent conundrum of pacifism. Sorry Al N, you can't get out of the conundrum that easily. I don't really know why you think it's a conundrum, unless you're trying to find some uber-efficient way of creating a better world? Because, if you do want a better world, you can't get away from pacifism at all, imho.

To many people fall for the practicality of violence, and look where it's gotten us. What we need to do is hang in there, and be strong in our assertions of cooperation, and solutions based on common good, not might makes right.

I agree with others here who have stated that "means are the ends". Whether we call it accountability, conditioning, or action/reaction - you know the saying about the butterfly flapping its wings impacting upon the whole world. It might be a conundrum, but its true. The more of us that say no to war, the sooner there will be no war... or at least, there will be less.

All hope is not lost. In fact, far from it. So don't fall for apparently sensible reasons for why pacifism doesn't make sense.

I'll just point to a couple examples of those who've died violently yet have not lacked for others who have forwarded the causes they believed in:

Jesus

M.L. King

Al N, please don't look for a way out of the pacifism conundrum. Pacifism is the way... trust me. There are no shortcuts... as humanity's long and sad history has shown.

The only things of joy are non-violent.

So... hang in there buddy. Or else join the other side: http://www.blogsofwar.com/ (please don't)

Let a thousand wimps bloom... gently.

A-bombing Hiroshima might have stopped WW2 a couple weeks sooner, but is the world really a better place for those bombs having been created in the first place?

peace, eh.

A great host of questions asked, like:

Will liberties gained exceed liberties given?
Who will audit the war?
Do these ends justify these means?
Do the ends ever justify the means?
Liberate nations? Keep them secure?
What will you trade from the Bill of Rights to stop a Bill of Wrongs?

I agree totally - it is important to weigh and audit!

And I suggest the following - by killing some (a few I dare to guess - compared to what Saddam has achieved) you gave several tens of millions of people at least a chance to start building a free life - I know at this point this still is nothing more than a distant goal for the future - for it will take them (Iraquis) years if not decades to learn what it is to behave democratically.

I am Czech, I have lived under the Communists, and I know that this by far outweighs all the other costs paid along the way - and despite the fact that it will not be easy, cheap and without many blunders - on both sides - the liberated and the liberating.

I'm just flat out AGAINST the fucked up nations in the middle east. I know we enabled Saddam Hussein so he would destroy the newly Islamic nation Iran had become. I know the WMD were shipped to him by us(and France and Japan and 20 other nations), but the middl east is a cesspool full of ignorance, oppression, hypocracy and brutal deespots who are greedy barbarous and cruel. God forbid the Princeton educated leaders in Jordan or Saudi Arabia or Egypt return to their country and build a university for their OWN people. No, because then they wouldn't have as easy a time exploiting them. Turning their attention away from their own governements and blaming the USA in the state run newspapers. Or promoting militant Islam that turns people into violent zealots.

I'm torn because whilke our past of enabling these backwards governments is abhorent, it seems now we are going in and toppling one that exemplified the WORST in oppression ofd its people.

I just want to see democracy there. Some there don't want it, but thats tough shit, because everyone here doesn't want it to continue the way it is- a big cement mixer cranking out ignorant starving human bombs who think we are their problem when it is their screwy leaders and screwy religion.

There is no difference between means and ends. It's an illusion. The way we did it is now history. We drive; we pay the guy to dig more oil out of the ground. We didn't crowd into the street to stop Bush from entering the White House on inauguration day--like they might have done in the Philipines--and war with Iraq was a very predictable outcome of that. The peace movement, fresh from voting for spoiler Ralph Nader, is shocked, shocked to discover that our nation is immoral--and they'll vote for Nader again. If we don't want might to make right, then we need to give right some might. But that would mean changing our lifestyle, compromising with Democrats, not buying from sweatshop nations...it's almost impossible. The question of whether ends justify means is meaningless. They're the same thing.

Rain, the trouble is, there is little to no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda (the people who committed 9/11). So attacking Iraq, while perhaps good in that it got rid of Saddam (if he's really gone), may have done nothing to "stamp out terrorism". In fact, it may have made the situation worse. For one thing, the more we alienate our nominal allies, the harder time we'll have getting intelligence information about potential terrorists.

Attacking Iraq on the grounds of 9/11 is like a person who got mugged in an alley going into other alleys with a gun and shooting whoever's there. Chances are, at least some of the people lurking in dark allies may be thugs who should be taken off the streets (or even killed). That doesn't make the neighbors feel more comfortable about the guy running around with blazing away, though.

Will this blathering blast of bunkum ever just learn the simple pleasure of shutting the fuck up?

Isn't all of the talk of whether or not we did the right thing by going over there and bombing the crap out of them a little late? It is done. We cannot change what has already happened. If you don't like the fact that we went over there to stop Saddam then you must work to make sure we don't elect the peolpe in our government who sent our troops over there.

I, for one, am glad that we went over there and bombed them. I think we should do what ever we can to stamp out terrorism. Freedom is not achieved painlessly. I feel for all of the innocent people who die in the war against terrorism. Before the world cries out in outrage about the innocent people dying over there, what about all of the innocent people who died on 9/11? Why does it seem as if the world has forgotten that we are not the ones who provoked this fight? How often must American's be attacked before it becomes acceptable to do something to ensure it does not happen again? Are we supposed to do nothing and accept that terrorism happens and just hope that next time it won't be my office building that blows up?

Tadster,
the weapons will be found with a little more time(i'm just as impatient as anyone) but this war was also about terrorism and it is widely known that Saddam sent blood money to palestinian suicide bombers. That, plus a the capture of Abu Abbas AND this startling discovery today of a terrorist training camp

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._mi_ea/war_rdp_1313

all support a case that the antiwar crowd rallied against.

I personally don't agree with your assertion that terrorism is a problem to be handled solely by law enforcement. 9/11 was not a crime - it was an act of war. groups who hide behind other country's sovereignity much like individuals who use our free society against us by plotting attacks unchecked.

note: i loathe Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. i just want to get that out there before it gets brought up...

"If you believe in a thing like non-violence, who forwards your cause if you die violently for what you believe in?"

John R - Brilliant! I've been wrestling with this Pacifist Conundrum for the better part of a year, and I never saw it put so succinctly. I'll be quoting you, sir!

Horn:

liberating the iraqis by invasion is another form of armchair generalship. The whole frickin' point of the original post was to put the costs of this intervention into consideration. This intervention was sold as a WMD deal not liberation.

A people deserve the government they have, but there is a case to be made for intervening when governments do not cooperate with the international law enforcement.

From mid-1939 the British & French position was one of very reluctant, but in the end resolute, confrontation. They guaranteed the Polish borders, and stuck by their guarantee, even though they couldn't & didn't do much to stop Germany prior to 1944.

It is morally reprehensible and you share the same position when confronted with dicatorships, tyranny and terrorism.

Why all this post-9/11 concern with dictatorships & tyranny? Hell, some of the Coalition of the Willing really excel in this department. The world as a whole needs to grapple with these issues, like Myanmar, etc, not the US playing Space Cowboy everywhere.

Terrorism is a law-enforcement issue.

its pathetic.

Iraq was no Germany / Japan of 1939. There are ways to assist in the liberation of subject populations without bombing the crap out of them.

"The poor innocent Iraqis under the Husseins had it within their power to liberate themselves from the secret police state, but failed to rise to the challenge."

oh, yes. this is a completely valid statement from and armchair general thousands of miles away. There was an uprising after the Gulf War and the US government though like you incorrectly do, that the people there would liberate themselves. they wer slaughtered by the Baath party. this isn't 1776. weapons and technology have tilited the scales just a bit. Lets also remember that he gassed the Kurds when there were whispers of such dissent. Would you have the balls to organize an uprising when faced with chemical weapons? Furthermore, it is quite obvious that an armed revolution by the Iraq people would not have the precision of our air assault and would have killed ten times as many people. So am i to assume you support a massive amount of casualties? oh no, thats my role because i supported this military action so i must be a bloodthirsty neocon with Halliburton stock. try again.

"Or the S Vietnamese compared to the N Vietnamese, perhaps?"

North Korea was a pretty good example, but here you are with " nevermind that! look at this!" Yes, we all know Vietnam was a complete nightmare. It has no comparison to the situation in Iraq though. Those people weren't hating their ruler. iun fact they were so deeply mired in tradition and religion, no one tried to find out what they wanted, but i digress. You simply won't sing off on freeing a people from tyranny while enjoying freedom yourself. sad.

"Alas, we came in too late to save European Jewry. The French & British stand against Germany was one on of trying to stop the Nazi snowball from accreting unto itself critical economic mass (E Europe)."

No, you are wrong. The French and British stance was one of APPEASEMENT. It is morally repregensible and you share the same position when confronted with dicatorships, tyranny and terrorism. its pathetic.

Horns:
is the freedom of the Iraqi people worth it?
$1000 to each US taxpayer and running, including interest. But this bill doesn't have a "Freedom" line item, yet.

lets put a price on the South Koreans lives compared to the N Koreans

Or the S Vietnamese compared to the N Vietnamese, perhaps? Some prices aren't necessarily worth paying. The poor innocent Iraqis under the Husseins had it within their power to liberate themselves from the secret police state, but failed to rise to the challenge.
 
lets wonder whether there were enough jews saved in WWII in regards to the effort we put forth invading Germany.

Alas, we came in too late to save European Jewry. The French & British stand against Germany was one on of trying to stop the Nazi snowball from accreting unto itself critical economic mass (E Europe).

Perhaps we should ask if the democracy attained in Japan was THE RIGHT AMOUNT of democracy for the A Bomb being used.

We weren't fighting to liberate the Japanese, but to hang their war criminals and free our POW's. A Japanese life wasn't worth spit in 1945, until MacArthur landed in Atsugi.