NationStates Jolt Archive

If pacifists believe that that all societies should not be structured to maintain a stance of readiness to fight in a conflict, how can this be achieved. The nations of the world are never going to disarm because they're all just so damn scared of what will happen if they do. If they're not afraid of each other, then they are afraid of extra-legal armed groups challenging them.

Can any pacifist give me a comprehensive plan to disarm the world so that war never happens again? Cos that would be brilliant.

I have a plan... Shame I'm not a pacifist.

We'll have a violent revolution, send the war-hawks into the gulags, and then install a pacifist dictator.

We'll have a violent revolution, send the war-hawks into the gulags, and then install a pacifist dictator.


Thus proving that true peace can only result through tyranny.

How long before there is an attempt at secession by a state desiring democracy and the whole bloody cycle starts again?

Pacifism is a denial of human nature, human needs and human abilities. Might as well try and stop evolution as try and end war.

If pacifists believe that that all societies should not be structured to maintain a stance of readiness to fight in a conflict, how can this be achieved. The nations of the world are never going to disarm because they're all just so damn scared of what will happen if they do. If they're not afraid of each other, then they are afraid of extra-legal armed groups challenging them.

Can any pacifist give me a comprehensive plan to disarm the world so that war never happens again? Cos that would be brilliant.

I am a pacifist, but I'm not of the opinion that world dissarmament is a good idea. I'm of the opinion that having bigger guns in the hands of a pacifist nation willing to intercede in any case where it's intercession will save lives, rather than costing them is the only way to attain true pacifism.

I'm more of a utilitarian pacifist I guess. Real pacifists don't live in the real world.

Pacifism will never work.

That's why I'm a warhawk....

War always brings peace once it's done with.

as a pacifist I believe we should be in a state of ready for attacks by having defenses set up

Maybe we could teach everyone love and understanding, instead of hatred and fear.

A system to prevent war entirely is impossible. Violence seems to happen everywhere. What could prevent some war would be if the UN gained a military force under it's explicit control, and then proceeded to grow a pair.

maybe we just have to accept that our species is built to be competitiev and occasionaly destructive

War always brings peace once it's done with.

That because it's either one or the other. You might as well say peace always brings war when it's done with.

Maybe we could teach everyone love and understanding, instead of hatred and fear.
:headbang: yes and if you can get a terrorist to sing kumbya around your camp fire one of them will be a suicide bomber.:mp5:

:headbang: yes and if you can get terrorist to sing kumbya around your camp fire one of them will be a suicide bomber.:mp5:

Don't mock me. It's sounds silly, but it's the only way. Besides, if we weren't telling the middle east how to live and behave, nobody would want to blow us up.

"Pacifists: how will your beliefs ever be pragmatic?"

More to the point: will pragmatism ever become a widely held belief? :eek:

It won't be pragmatic.
They hope it just kinda happens.
The only way it ever would is if everyone was them, though.

Don't mock me. It's sounds silly, but it's the only way. Besides, if we weren't telling the middle east how to live and behave, nobody would want to blow us up.

You are kidding, right?! We are not telling anybody how to live - it is THEY (Islamic fascists) who are telling us and the rest of the world how to live (or else they blow us all up). So we have only two choices - either do exactly what they tell us to do (wrap up all our women, raise our asses high in the air five times a day and pray toward Mecca, stop drinking, etc.) or kill them all, each and single one of them. Well, there's a third choice - we can just lay down and die. But there will be no peace until each and every Islamofascist is dead.

Don't mock me. It's sounds silly, but it's the only way. Besides, if we weren't telling the middle east how to live and behave, nobody would want to blow us up.

Wow. Someone has an interesting world view. :rolleyes: Excuse me for being pessemistic and a bit realistic but a lot of terrorism stems from religious fundamentalism. To these terrorists even if we did stop telling them what to do we would still be the enemy by not being them. I would love also to say that teaching love instead of hate would work but truthfully who intentionally teaches hate... well other than racists and other ists but I was taught to love my fellow man by my own religion that seems to have forgotten that teaching. :headbang:
I'd love to be passifistic but hey I like a good fight, now war sucks and I Hate and I mean I hate to say it but sometimes it is necessary because people are just stupid and often do things that hurt way to many people. Like Genocide.

You are kidding, right?! We are not telling anybody how to live - it is THEY (Islamic fascists) who are telling us and the rest of the world how to live (or else they blow us all up). So we have only two choices - either do exactly what they tell us to do (wrap up all our women, raise our asses high in the air five times a day and pray toward Mecca, stop drinking, etc.) or kill them all, each and single one of them. Well, there's a third choice - we can just lay down and die. But there will be no peace until each and every Islamofascist is dead.

No, I'm not joking. Why do you feel as though you personally are being targeted by terrorist attacks? It's your country, not the people in it. Do you see Canada's buildings being bombed? No, because Canada, as a nation, doesn't run about telling other countries that what they're doing is wrong, and pissing everyone off. Here's a thought for you: all humans are equal. What that means is, you don't get to judge anyone. So maybe you think that what they're doing is wrong, but you don't actually have any authority on the matter, surprisingly enough.

Wow. Someone has an interesting world view. :rolleyes: Excuse me for being pessemistic and a bit realistic but a lot of terrorism stems from religious fundamentalism. To these terrorists even if we did stop telling them what to do we would still be the enemy by not being them. I would love also to say that teaching love instead of hate would work but truthfully who intentionally teaches hate... well other than racists and other ists but I was taught to love my fellow man by my own religion that seems to have forgotten that teaching. :headbang:
I'd love to be passifistic but hey I like a good fight, now war sucks and I Hate and I mean I hate to say it but sometimes it is necessary because people are just stupid and often do things that hurt way to many people. Like Genocide.

So, just because everything isn't rainbows and unicorns, it has to be hurricanes and pain? I take alot of crap for having a postive view on human nature and world peace, so don't think you're telling me anything I haven't already heard.
You demonstrated to me the most dangerous belief existent: the "it's too hard, so let's not try" viewpoint. There are better ways to solve our problems. Heck, humans are the only animals I know of that use full-blown wars to deal with their internal problems. Therefore, it must not be impossible to live without war. It's going to take work to find peace. But it's possible, and everyone's got to believe that.
You may wonder where my unyielding devotion to my pacifism comes from. It comes from the simplest rule I know of: human equality. If humans are equal, than I am neither better nor worse than any other. Therefore, if I can be peaceful, every other person can be. To think otherwise would be exceedingly arrogant.

convince everyone that gamers are the weapons of the future, and all future wars will be fought via internet rts games.


What?

In all seriousness (ish) I think eventually things will end up as totally electronic warfare, leaving me and my pointy stick the opportunity to take over the world in a way no-one will ever expect.

Pacifism = suckiness yech bleugh.

Disgusts me when people say socialism and pacifism go hand in hand. Its wrong.

No, I'm not joking. Why do you feel as though you personally are being targeted by terrorist attacks? It's your country, not the people in it. Do you see Canada's buildings being bombed? No, because Canada, as a nation, doesn't run about telling other countries that what they're doing is wrong, and pissing everyone off. Here's a thought for you: all humans are equal. What that means is, you don't get to judge anyone. So maybe you think that what they're doing is wrong, but you don't actually have any authority on the matter, surprisingly enough.

if you don't judge anyone, then you can never be wrong about them.

if you don't judge anyone, then you can never be wrong about them.

Let me rephrase: they may be doing something you would never do personally, but you cannot judge their actions as officially "wrong."

Let me rephrase: they may be doing something you would never do personally, but you cannot judge their actions as officially "wrong."


lol, I know - I was agreeing with you :D

lol, I know - I was agreeing with you :D

I thought you were being nitpicky about my wording. Sorry about that.

pacifism is a personal philosophy as much as it is a policy decision. Change must come one person at a time. Ive taken my share of punches without fighting back, and the fight ends quickly enough. All i can hope is those that promote violence begin to see the error in thier ways.
Of course im anti-war at all costs, although I sympathize with those who take the stance of "only as a last resort." But avoiding war should be the final result, not the beginning of widespread pacifism. We cant stop every war that comes up, but maybe one day.

No, I'm not joking. Why do you feel as though you personally are being targeted by terrorist attacks? It's your country, not the people in it. Do you see Canada's buildings being bombed? No, because Canada, as a nation, doesn't run about telling other countries that what they're doing is wrong, and pissing everyone off. Here's a thought for you: all humans are equal. What that means is, you don't get to judge anyone. So maybe you think that what they're doing is wrong, but you don't actually have any authority on the matter, surprisingly enough.


I don't feel threatened by terrorist attacks - I feel threatened by WAR aimed at our complete destruction. Canada is not being targeted YET because it is simply a very insignificant (and quite cowardly) country. But in the end Islamofascists fully intend to kill each and every American AND Canadian who is not a Muslim. By the way, you are very wrong about Canada not "telling other countries that what they're doing is wrong". Canada is in fact one of the most arrogant, self-righteous, and sanctimonious countries in the world, constantly telling others that they are better than them (and very hypocritically at that, since they are frequently great beneficiaries of the actions they criticize). And I would in fact be hard pressed to name a country that's pissing me off more than Canada. But that does not make me call for bombing Canada or even closing the damn border (which would immediately cause disintegration of that country, since Quebec would not remain there after the inevitable economic collapse). At least not yet.

On another point, I know the difference between good and evil. But it's not even about that. Islamofascists want to kill me simply because of their own intolerance. And it does not matter whether I even consider that wrong. All that matters is my right to self-defense. I don't want to judge them (although I'm free to do so if I wish) - I want to KILL them. And this war will not end until one of only three logically possible alternatives happen - 1) they kill us all, 2) we kill them all, 3) they reassess their values and objectives and decide they don't want to kill us all. Most likely, it will be some combination of 2 and 3, just as with the two previous brands of Fascism - Nazism and Communism. But just as in previous cases, the root of the problem is some totalitarian ideology, absolutely intolerant of us and insisting on our utter destruction.

pacifism is a personal philosophy as much as it is a policy decision. Change must come one person at a time. Ive taken my share of punches without fighting back, and the fight ends quickly enough.

So far you've just been very lucky and have NEVER been in any serious fight. Now just imagine that someone weaker that you breaks into your house. You can easily fight him back, but choose not to, so he ties you up, then rapes and murders your wife and finally rapes your small children of both sexes - all that in front of you. Will you still feel very proud and morally superior over supporters of violence?! Contrary to what they tell you in insane "conflict resolution" classes, a lot of conflicts can be resolved ONLY with violence (usually lethal violence on a massive scale).

I don't feel threatened by terrorist attacks - I feel threatened by WAR aimed at our complete destruction. Canada is not being targeted YET because it is simply a very insignificant (and quite cowardly) country. But in the end Islamofascists fully intend to kill each and every American AND Canadian who is not a Muslim. By the way, you are very wrong about Canada not "telling other countries that what they're doing is wrong". Canada is in fact one of the most arrogant, self-righteous, and sanctimonious countries in the world, constantly telling others that they are better than them (and very hypocritically at that, since they are frequently great beneficiaries of the actions they criticize). And I would in fact be hard pressed to name a country that's pissing me off more than Canada. But that does not make me call for bombing Canada or even closing the damn border (which would immediately cause disintegration of that country, since Quebec would not remain there after the inevitable economic collapse). At least not yet.

On another point, I know the difference between good and evil. But it's not even about that. Islamofascists want to kill me simply because of their own intolerance. And it does not matter whether I even consider that wrong. All that matters is my right to self-defense. I don't want to judge them (although I'm free to do so if I wish) - I want to KILL them. And this war will not end until one of only three logically possible alternatives happen - 1) they kill us all, 2) we kill them all, 3) they reassess their values and objectives and decide they don't want to kill us all. Most likely, it will be some combination of 2 and 3, just as with the two previous brands of Fascism - Nazism and Communism. But just as in previous cases, the root of the problem is some totalitarian ideology, absolutely intolerant of us and insisting on our utter destruction.

How dare you call Canada self-righteous and arrogant while claiming that you know the difference between good and evil? What makes you so damn special that you get to decide what's right? Are you some other race? Are you some omniscient being? Or are you just a human who somehow came to think he was superior to others?
As to self-defense, that only applies if someone is actually attempting to kill you. Is a so-called Islamo-Facist currently pointing a gun at your head and threatening to pull the trigger? Oh, wait, my mistake; you're the one making death threats. I was so convinced by your heroic behaviour that I almost forgot the nature of your bloodlust.

I'm a pacifist, but i can admit that my pacifism has never actually been tested. My life has never been in danger, neither have the lives of my loved ones. I don't like violence, but i can understand that in certain situations, people might deem it necessary. I don't believe i am morally superior to someone who doesn't have the same point of view as me, because i'm not. I've been called naive, i've been told i don't understand, i've already been told it won't work, i've heard it all. This is nothing new. It won't stop me from believing in it though.

As for Canada, you say no one is pissing you off right now more than we are. If you want to believe we are arrogant, go ahead, if you want to hate us, go ahead, but how can you honestly say that we are pissing you off more than countries that want to attack you or attack other people? How can you say we are pissing you off more than countries that are committing horrible human rights violations and murdering their own people? Obviously we're not perfect, but i would rather a country be arrogant and high and mighty, while still being relatively harmless, than be murderous.

How dare you call Canada self-righteous and arrogant while claiming that you know the difference between good and evil? What makes you so damn special that you get to decide what's right? Are you some other race? Are you some omniscient being? Or are you just a human who somehow came to think he was superior to others?
As to self-defense, that only applies if someone is actually attempting to kill you. Is a so-called Islamo-Facist currently pointing a gun at your head and threatening to pull the trigger? Oh, wait, my mistake; you're the one making death threats. I was so convinced by your heroic behaviour that I almost forgot the nature of your bloodlust.

Have you lived under a rock the last 30 years?! Islamofascists have murdered thousands and thousands of Americans over that period, including thousands of random people inside the US. And they officially declared war and issued fatwas, in case anybody still had any doubt. So yes, they are pointing a gun and threatening to pull the trigger, and they are attempting to kill me (BTW just a few weeks ago a Muslim who grew up right here in my city deliberately steered a SUV into a crowd - and yes, he afterwards admitted he wanted to kill as many people as possible).

Have you lived under a rock the last 30 years?! Islamofascists have murdered thousands and thousands of Americans over that period, including thousands of random people inside the US. And they officially declared war and issued fatwas, in case anybody still had any doubt. So yes, they are pointing a gun and threatening to pull the trigger, and they are attempting to kill me (BTW just a few weeks ago a Muslim who grew up right here in my city deliberately steered a SUV into a crowd - and yes, he afterwards admitted he wanted to kill as many people as possible).

I didn't mean metaphorically. I meant literally. You can't use metaphors as a defence in court.

The only way I can imagine stopping war is a single world government with a police system large enough to put down violent rebellion. Of course, it's a lot more complicated than that, and it's still a long way away, assuming it happens.

To end war, just exterminate the human race.

Heck, humans are the only animals I know of that use full-blown wars to deal with their internal problems.

Actually, "wars" have been observed among several species of insects. I've seen video of a large species of hornet invading a bee hive, decapitating the workers and eating the larvae. There is a species of ant that has the equivalent of suicide bombers in it's ranks. The specialized ant is able to make itself explode, spraying an organic acid over a small area.

One could argue that the only reason other mammals don't have "wars" is that their groups/bands/herds are too small and lack the hierarchy necessary. It is not as if they possess some aversion to violence.

As for Canada, you say no one is pissing you off right now more than we are. If you want to believe we are arrogant, go ahead, if you want to hate us, go ahead, but how can you honestly say that we are pissing you off more than countries that want to attack you or attack other people? How can you say we are pissing you off more than countries that are committing horrible human rights violations and murdering their own people? Obviously we're not perfect, but i would rather a country be arrogant and high and mighty, while still being relatively harmless, than be murderous.

Yes, yes, a lot of other countries are A LOT worse than Canada, no comparison really. But purely at emotional level Canadian hypocritical self-righteousness is REALLY irritating (from landmine ban to Kyoto - oh, wait! Canada actually is NOT going to honor its Kyoto obligations). After 9/11 each and every Canadian politician (starting with the PM) told us that we had it coming (gee, that was so helpful!). Until just a coupla years ago Hezbollah was perfectly legal in Canada and a few years ago the PM was seen in the same room with Hezbollah head in Lebanon. Canada lets scum from all over the world to immigrate, gives them Canadian passports (some of them were caught trying to drive a car with a trunk full of explosives into the US) and then insists that we treat all Canadian citizens the same at the border and don't subject anyone to any extra scrutiny. Canada does not have its own air defense and just uses ours, but at the time when North Korean and Iranian missiles fly farther and farther (while both upstanding members of the Axis of Evil either have nukes or work hard to get them) Canada takes a holier-than-though attitude and refuses to participate and/or cooperate in any way in our missile defense, while knowing damn well that we will shoot down any missile heading towards Canada anyway (simply because we can't know until it's too late whether the target is in Canada or in the US). In short, Canada behaves like a teenager who yells at his parents "I don't need you!", then finishes his dinner provided by his parents and retires to his room in a house paid for by his parents. Oh, and did I mention all those Canadians so-o proud of their "free" health care (so-o superior to the barbaric American system), sneaking across the border to get some health care (now vs. after a 15-month wait)?! Once again, what it makes it all so irritating, is not actions themselves, but the ATTITUDE.

I didn't mean metaphorically. I meant literally. You can't use metaphors as a defence in court.

What do courts have to do with it?! We are talking about war, not crimes. I am not at war personally - my nation is.

So far you've just been very lucky and have NEVER been in any serious fight. Now just imagine that someone weaker that you breaks into your house. You can easily fight him back, but choose not to, so he ties you up, then rapes and murders your wife and finally rapes your small children of both sexes - all that in front of you. Will you still feel very proud and morally superior over supporters of violence?! Contrary to what they tell you in insane "conflict resolution" classes, a lot of conflicts can be resolved ONLY with violence

Pacifism says dont hit him back, not dont lock your door at night or even push him out the door if hes weaker than me. by not reciprocating, im giving him a glimpse of what its like when a person starts acting human.
Earlier someone mentioned people as animals, and most of the time we are, but we've proven we can rise above that, creating art is the most obvious example, creating something that doesnt help us at all with survival, but inspires feelings and emotions in us that really arent appropriate for the goal of finding our next meal. Thats part of what the pacifist wants, just a very slight awakening, a seizing of a part of our own evolution into something more. That's why it has to be one person at a time

What do courts have to do with it?! We are talking about war, not crimes. I am not at war personally - my nation is.

You were talking about self-defense. If you personally shot a muslim, and called it self-defense, he would have had to actually be within seconds of killing you.

um, im glad everyone has a strong opinion on the attitudes of canada, Ive never been there myself, but as I understand it its supposed to be quite pleasant. But beyond being less war-oriented than the USA, what does Canada have to do with anything?

convince everyone that gamers are the weapons of the future, and all future wars will be fought via internet rts games.

That wouldn't work, because then Korea would be invincible.

But beyond being less war-oriented than the USA, what does Canada have to do with anything?
It's where I live.

Pacifism says dont hit him back, not dont lock your door at night or even push him out the door if hes weaker than me. by not reciprocating, im giving him a glimpse of what its like when a person starts acting human.

OK, what if he is stronger than you and you can not push him out the door, but you have a gun? If you can't have a gun as a pacifist, just suppose he dropped his own and you can pick it up and shoot him. Will you?

orignally by Midlands
OK, what if he is stronger than you and you can not push him out the door, but you have a gun? If you can't have a gun as a pacifist, just suppose he dropped his own and you can pick it up and shoot him. Will you?

does he speak the same language as me? Because then i can talk to him with reason. If hes a threat? can i run? can my family run? No i wouldnt shoot him, but ill admit, if my family was in trouble i would take some action to protect them before they had to run

OK, what if he is stronger than you and you can not push him out the door, but you have a gun? If you can't have a gun as a pacifist, just suppose he dropped his own and you can pick it up and shoot him. Will you?

Nope. Would I threaten him with the gun, tie him up, and prevent him from hurting me or my family in some way? Yes. Would I shoot him? No. If for some reason I was unable to keep him restrained, and shooting was the only option to protect myself or loved ones, I wouldn't shoot to kill. Shoot him someplace non-fatal so he cannot act, then bandage the wound so he is okay and call 911. But no killing under any circumstances.

does he speak the same language as me? Because then i can talk to him with reason. If hes a threat? can i run? can my family run? No i wouldnt shoot him, but ill admit, if my family was in trouble i would take some action to protect them before they had to run

Suppose he does not want to talk with reason?! And he may be perfectly reasonable from his own point of view - he simply wants to f#&k. Right now. And he does not care whether his partner(s) want to or not. Oh, he also really likes sex with children. What exactly can you tell him to change all that?! And just suppose that you can't run (anyway, small children are unlikely to outrun an adult). So basically nothing short of lethal violence will stop him. I know MY answer - my .45 Glock is always loaded with 10 hollow-point bullets, but then I'm not a pacifist (although I imagine it would still be very hard for me to actually pull the trigger).

Nope. Would I threaten him with the gun, tie him up, and prevent him from hurting me or my family in some way? Yes. Would I shoot him? No. If for some reason I was unable to keep him restrained, and shooting was the only option to protect myself or loved ones, I wouldn't shoot to kill. Shoot him someplace non-fatal so he cannot act, then bandage the wound so he is okay and call 911. But no killing under any circumstances.

Unfortunately you would be sued by said person, and have to pay his medical bills and other damages. Goly do I love our court system. :headbang:

I'm of the opinion that having bigger guns in the hands of a pacifist nation willing to intercede in any case where it's intercession will save lives, rather than costing them is the only way to attain true pacifism.
Humanitarian intervention is not pacifist.

Pacifism will never work.

That's why I'm a warhawk....

War always brings peace once it's done with.
As you can tell I'm no pacifist, but to claim that war always works is just foolish.

Funny you have Jesus in your signature. He was no government-lovin' war hawk. But I suppose you have the advantage of a superpower government on your side, not working against you.

No, I'm not joking. Why do you feel as though you personally are being targeted by terrorist attacks? It's your country, not the people in it. Do you see Canada's buildings being bombed? No, because Canada, as a nation, doesn't run about telling other countries that what they're doing is wrong, and pissing everyone off. Here's a thought for you: all humans are equal. What that means is, you don't get to judge anyone. So maybe you think that what they're doing is wrong, but you don't actually have any authority on the matter, surprisingly enough.
Fuck relativism. Just fuck it. If people are making me suffer, or if they are making others suffer, then I do have authority on the matter and thus, the right to do something to fix it.

But it's possible, and everyone's got to believe that.
If it's possible, tell me how.

You may wonder where my unyielding devotion to my pacifism comes from. It comes from the simplest rule I know of: human equality. If humans are equal, than I am neither better nor worse than any other. Therefore, if I can be peaceful, every other person can be. To think otherwise would be exceedingly arrogant.
What about human rights? People need to defend themselves when other humans come along and think that they can bulldoze their human rights, and treat them as inferiors. See Nazi invasion of Poland, 1939.

Disgusts me when people say socialism and pacifism go hand in hand. Its wrong.
I've even heard people say that if you're not a pacifist, then you're not a leftist. Which would of course mean that Marx, Trotsky and Guevara were not leftists. :rolleyes:

Let me rephrase: they may be doing something you would never do personally, but you cannot judge their actions as officially "wrong."
You can, if they are violating principles such as human rights and equality. Remember, moral relativism is for intellectual jellyfish. If everyone in the past took your attitude, there would never have been any social or civil rights movements.

And I would in fact be hard pressed to name a country that's pissing me off more than Canada.
How can you find Canada offensive?

And this war will not end until one of only three logically possible alternatives happen - 1) they kill us all, 2) we kill them all, 3) they reassess their values and objectives and decide they don't want to kill us all. Most likely, it will be some combination of 2 and 3, just as with the two previous brands of Fascism - Nazism and Communism.
They didn't kill all the Nazis or all the Communists (or even many of them) to defeat them.

But just as in previous cases, the root of the problem is some totalitarian ideology, absolutely intolerant of us and insisting on our utter destruction.
Agreed.


As to self-defense, that only applies if someone is actually attempting to kill you. Is a so-called Islamo-Facist currently pointing a gun at your head and threatening to pull the trigger? Oh, wait, my mistake; you're the one making death threats. I was so convinced by your heroic behaviour that I almost forgot the nature of your bloodlust.
So we should ignore the problem until it's literally in our faces? What if we don't have guns of our own?

That's like saying that all criminals should be locked up, rather than eliminating the root causes of crime, such as poverty.

The only way I can imagine stopping war is a single world government with a police system large enough to put down violent rebellion.
They'll need to use violence to do that. Thus ending pacifism.

But purely at emotional level Canadian hypocritical self-righteousness is REALLY irritating (from landmine ban to Kyoto - oh, wait! Canada actually is NOT going to honor its Kyoto obligations).
How are choices made for their own country sanctimonious or self-righteous? It's not like they portray themselves as the beacon of freedom, spreading democracy around.

After 9/11 each and every Canadian politician (starting with the PM) told us that we had it coming (gee, that was so helpful!).
This is not true. Eight hundred Canadians died on 9/11.

Until just a coupla years ago Hezbollah was perfectly legal in Canada and a few years ago the PM was seen in the same room with Hezbollah head in Lebanon.
Until a couple of years ago the IRA was legal in America, and Bush still hangs out with the head of the IRA's political wing. This doesn't make Hezbollah OK, but look at your own country while criticising Canada.

Canada lets scum from all over the world to immigrate, gives them Canadian passports
The USA allowed the 9/11 hijackers to immigrate legally.

In short, Canada behaves like a teenager who yells at his parents "I don't need you!", then finishes his dinner provided by his parents and retires to his room in a house paid for by his parents.
I don't think Canada does any such thing. The USA is her biggest trading partner.

So basically nothing short of lethal violence will stop him.
I'm beggining to think that you're just a bloodthirsty bastard. Lethal force is almost never necessary. I'd like to see someone running after being kneecapped.

If for some reason I was unable to keep him restrained, and shooting was the only option to protect myself or loved ones, I wouldn't shoot to kill. Shoot him someplace non-fatal so he cannot act, then bandage the wound so he is okay and call 911. But no killing under any circumstances.

So I presume you regularly go to a shooting range to practice your shooting skills? Otherwise making a non-fatal yet incapacitating shot under great pressure in a fast-changing situation is a pure fantasy. BTW I'd surely try just to incapacitate myself. But I am also well aware of a very simple principle: if you as much as touch a gun in a hostile situation you MUST be fully prepared to kill.

That trading relationship is just as benficial to the U.S. too. You get more oil from us than from any individual country in the Middle East, though obviously you get more from the Middle East as a whole. I read a statistic somewhere that said New Jersey alone is our biggest exporter, but i'm not sure if that's actually true. The first one is though.

They didn't kill all the Nazis or all the Communists (or even many of them) to defeat them.

Quite enough to make the rest of them just give up (plus there was still a credible threat to kill more - or even all of them).

How are choices made for their own country sanctimonious or self-righteous? It's not like they portray themselves as the beacon of freedom, spreading democracy around.

They actually like to stress their differences with the US (implying that Canada is morally superior).

This is not true. Eight hundred Canadians died on 9/11.

That's irrelevant. I remember very well what Chretien and some members of his cabinet said (e.g. "I hate those bastards" - that's a direct quote).

Until a couple of years ago the IRA was legal in America, and Bush still hangs out with the head of the IRA's political wing. This doesn't make Hezbollah OK, but look at your own country while criticising Canada.

IRA was not legal. And while I'd really prefer Gerry Adams were never allowed into this country (other than directly to jail), it was Her Majesty's Government rather than US Administration that made him a cabinet member in N. Ireland.

The USA allowed the 9/11 hijackers to immigrate legally.

I believe none of them was an immigrant let alone a US citizen - they were all on temporary visas (and that meant, among other things, that they could not automatically enter Canada with no questions asked - while all those new Canadian citizens can easily enter the US without ever applying for a visa).

I don't think Canada does any such thing. The USA is her biggest trading partner.

I was referring to us subsidizing Canadian defense and cheap drugs.

That trading relationship is just as benficial to the U.S. too. You get more oil from us than from any individual country in the Middle East, though obviously you get more from the Middle East as a whole. I read a statistic somewhere that said New Jersey alone is our biggest exporter, but i'm not sure if that's actually true. The first one is though.

Yes, of course, and one of my cars is Canadian. I'm NOT calling to close the border or something. But we surely could use less sanctimony. Back to the topic of pacifism, that pompous signing of landmine ban treaty in Ottawa was way overdone and the whole proceeding was staged as a rebuke to the US for not signing. Never mind that no country actually needing land mines signed the treaty and not a single landmine was removed as a result of signing. But somehow nobody bothered to mention that even pacifist Finland refused to sign - no, it was the evil US everybody was pointing the finger at. Oh, and please don't tell me that Canadian decision to replace the defunct USSR as the main benefactor of the only totalitarian dictatorship in Western Hemisphere had nothing to do with the desire to poke a finger in the American eye.

Can any pacifist give me a comprehensive plan to disarm the world so that war never happens again? Cos that would be brilliant.

Exterminate most apes, ants, and a few species of monkey.

Sorry - war, xenophobia, religion, altruism, sex, and blinking are equally results of our evolutionary history. You can't stop any of them without making a person no longer a person.

That said, I strongly believe our world could serious, planned disarmament. It goes like this:

1) Each member of the world voluntarily makes the UN the most powerful force on the globe.
2) Arms export and manufacture slowly restricted, worldwide, at proportional levels. For examply, lets say USA makes a million guns per year and jamaica makes 10. Lets say that after 5 years, production has to be cut 10%. So then USA decreases their production by 100,000 guns and jamaica by one. Why this way? So that the most paranoid and most powerful nations still get to be on top on the way down from the current situation (necessary incentive)
3) After arms manufacter is down worldwide, start a transparent nuclear dissolution project, worldwide, with the same proportionality. Anyone who tries to make a dash for nukes once no-one else has them gets messed up by the UN.
4) Make sure the UN is more powerful than any single nation, but still account for less than 20% of the world's military.
5) After arms and nukes are taken care of, start the transparent cutbacks in the military.

That's my two cents!

Exterminate most apes, ants, and a few species of monkey.

Sorry - war, xenophobia, religion, altruism, sex, and blinking are equally results of our evolutionary history. You can't stop any of them without making a person no longer a person.

That said, I strongly believe our world could serious, planned disarmament. It goes like this:

1) Each member of the world voluntarily makes the UN the most powerful force on the globe.
2) Arms export and manufacture slowly restricted, worldwide, at proportional levels. For examply, lets say USA makes a million guns per year and jamaica makes 10. Lets say that after 5 years, production has to be cut 10%. So then USA decreases their production by 100,000 guns and jamaica by one. Why this way? So that the most paranoid and most powerful nations still get to be on top on the way down from the current situation (necessary incentive)
3) After arms manufacter is down worldwide, start a transparent nuclear dissolution project, worldwide, with the same proportionality. Anyone who tries to make a dash for nukes once no-one else has them gets messed up by the UN.
4) Make sure the UN is more powerful than any single nation, but still account for less than 20% of the world's military.
5) After arms and nukes are taken care of, start the transparent cutbacks in the military.

That's my two cents!


Aha, and then the UN (mostly composed of dictatorships) makes democracy illegal and threatens to invade any country that dares to hold an election. I'm also really curious how EXACTLY you envision "transparent cutbacks in the military" in totalitarian countries where NOTHING is transparent (and you can't even find a damn phonebook).

Aha, and then the UN (mostly composed of dictatorships) makes democracy illegal and threatens to invade any country that dares to hold an election. I'm also really curious how EXACTLY you envision "transparent cutbacks in the military" in totalitarian countries where NOTHING is transparent (and you can't even find a damn phonebook).

You know, I never understood this whole anti-UN thing. Other than having trouble putting their money where their mouth is, their general resolutions are pretty cool.

As for your conspiracy theory about corrupt dictatorships controlling the UN, here is the list of nations on the Security Council (IE the part that would control military units):
USA, France, Russia, China, UK

As for how to get transperancy in totalitarian states (of which there are few of, nowadays), I hear increasing wealth, education, health, and standard of living works pretty darned well. I also hear using the military on them doesn't. You have to attack this problem from the inside out, and that starts with something other than guns.

So, just because everything isn't rainbows and unicorns, it has to be hurricanes and pain? I take alot of crap for having a postive view on human nature and world peace, so don't think you're telling me anything I haven't already heard.
You demonstrated to me the most dangerous belief existent: the "it's too hard, so let's not try" viewpoint. There are better ways to solve our problems. Heck, humans are the only animals I know of that use full-blown wars to deal with their internal problems. Therefore, it must not be impossible to live without war. It's going to take work to find peace. But it's possible, and everyone's got to believe that.
You may wonder where my unyielding devotion to my pacifism comes from. It comes from the simplest rule I know of: human equality. If humans are equal, than I am neither better nor worse than any other. Therefore, if I can be peaceful, every other person can be. To think otherwise would be exceedingly arrogant.
You forget chimps. I'm not saying "we can't change it so lets leave it alone." All I'm saying is that teaching people anything won't help. And about your post on Canada... Well I think the reason noone has bombed Canada is because to hit anywhere populated you have to go through the states.

As for your conspiracy theory about corrupt dictatorships controlling the UN, here is the list of nations on the Security Council (IE the part that would control military units):
USA, France, Russia, China, UK




Hmmm... Russia democracy ? :o China, democracy ? :o And if You ask the many peoples... well... USA neither..

Don't mock me. It's sounds silly, but it's the only way. Besides, if we weren't telling the middle east how to live and behave, nobody would want to blow us up.

Well, for starters we're making sure we get the message across that it's NOT ok to blow yourselves or anyone else up in our country.

But somehow nobody bothered to mention that even pacifist Finland refused to sign - no, it was the evil US everybody was pointing the finger at.
Finland, pacifist? You're making yourself look ever more like a typical American with your ignorance of history and world affairs. Finland is one of the more warlike countries in Europe.

You're just feeling very defensive. Canada doesn't desire to poke fingers in the US eye. How dare they act as an independent nation, don't they know they're the 51st state? :rolleyes:

You seem to be in favour of gratuitous killing. I can accept killing when it's necessary, but it shouldn't be done just because you disagree with people, or because it's fun, or because you're angry or any other such bullshit. Your pro-suffering views are a disgrace, and antithetical to everyone who wants the world to be a better place.

Maybe we could teach everyone love and understanding, instead of hatred and fear.
Do you not see the contradiction in your argument. You say that we should never tell anyone else how to live, yet that we should tell them to be loving and understanding, rather than hateful?

Well, the core ideas are simples, there are some of them:

- People are brainwashed, since birth, to believe in violence, respect of authority, war, you-or-me logics. Teach them compassion, cooperation, to always question authority, ... and there would be much less wars. It's soldiers who fight the wars, and if soldiers were educated with different values, they would refuse to attack.

- It's much, much easier to defend yourself than to attack. If the people love their society, they would fight to defend it - with or without an army. No occupying army ever managed to control land for very long, against a people wanting to kick them. So, abolish the army, but give weapons to the people if anyone attacks you. That would very likely work - if the people are ready to fight for the "country", which means they share its value and the system they live in is good enough. Don't forget also the value of non-cooperation: if as soon as someone take control of the country, everyone goes on strike, what could would that be for them ? Just trust the people.

- The theory that two democracies will never attack each other is fundamentaly true. The problem is that most countries that claim to be democracy are not really democratic (like the USA, but they are not the only ones), but that is also something that is improvable. And the strong role of wars and armies in nowaday world play an important role in lowering the "democracy level". Both inside and outside.

- A transnational body, like an improved UN, could ensure no country will invade another one. I don't oppose a democratised UN having a limited armed force, able to act only to defend an attacked country.

Those are quick ideas, but there are many others.

But well, I tend to agree with Bertold Bretch: "As long as it'll be you or me, and not you and me; as long as it'll be going farther than you, and not farther with you; there'll be wars. As long as there'll be capitalism, there'll be wars." We need to get beyond capitalism to create a warless world. But we'll manage to.

- It's much, much easier to defend yourself than to attack. If the people love their society, they would fight to defend it - with or without an army. No occupying army ever managed to control land for very long, against a people wanting to kick them. So, abolish the army, but give weapons to the people if anyone attacks you. That would very likely work - if the people are ready to fight for the "country", which means they share its value and the system they live in is good enough. Don't forget also the value of non-cooperation: if as soon as someone take control of the country, everyone goes on strike, what could would that be for them ? Just trust the people.
This arrangement would be much less well-organised than a military. If the attacking force was an organised military they would probably win.

This arrangement would be much less well-organised than a military. If the attacking force was an organised military they would probably win.

Win what ? You cannot win against a people fighting for freedom. Look at what happened in Vietnam, for example. You can win on a military level, but you cannot win in reality - and sooner or later you'll be forced to give up and resign. Look at Irak nowadays, can you say USA won ? And in Irak, the population is far from being united.

We'll have a violent revolution, send the war-hawks into the gulags, and then install a pacifist dictator.
LOL.
thats kind of an oxymoron, ain't it?

Pacifism is fine - if you can convince the other guy to be pacifist. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

The OP's question was biased and basically a set up. He doesn't really want to know anyone else's opinion, he's made up his mind and decided he's objectively right, as have several others on this thread. Are they? Perhaps, and the evidence so far supports that theory, but if someone has an arguement to refute that I for one would love to hear it. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I'd prefer in this case to be wrong. Too many others just want to sit there and basically say "ha, ha! You're wrong, you dumb hippie!" and not have to back it up. Not real mature.

Peace can only be achieve through war. liberals will never understand this. death brings life

Peace can only be achieve through war. liberals will never understand this. death brings life


another gem, UN.:rolleyes:

another gem, UN.:rolleyes:
its true, if you want peace, prepare for war. this is the nature of man and it will never change.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct for a change. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing, though. You neocons seem to enjoy war way too much.

Pacifism will never work.

That's why I'm a warhawk....

War always brings peace once it's done with.

Then the world should have been at peace by now.

Peace can only be achieve through war. liberals will never understand this. death brings life

So you wouldnt mind if I kill you then?

I don't feel threatened by terrorist attacks - I feel threatened by WAR aimed at our complete destruction. Canada is not being targeted YET because it is simply a very insignificant (and quite cowardly) country. But in the end Islamofascists fully intend to kill each and every American AND Canadian who is not a Muslim. By the way, you are very wrong about Canada not "telling other countries that what they're doing is wrong". Canada is in fact one of the most arrogant, self-righteous, and sanctimonious countries in the world, constantly telling others that they are better than them (and very hypocritically at that, since they are frequently great beneficiaries of the actions they criticize). And I would in fact be hard pressed to name a country that's pissing me off more than Canada. But that does not make me call for bombing Canada or even closing the damn border (which would immediately cause disintegration of that country, since Quebec would not remain there after the inevitable economic collapse). At least not yet.

On another point, I know the difference between good and evil. But it's not even about that. Islamofascists want to kill me simply because of their own intolerance. And it does not matter whether I even consider that wrong. All that matters is my right to self-defense. I don't want to judge them (although I'm free to do so if I wish) - I want to KILL them. And this war will not end until one of only three logically possible alternatives happen - 1) they kill us all, 2) we kill them all, 3) they reassess their values and objectives and decide they don't want to kill us all. Most likely, it will be some combination of 2 and 3, just as with the two previous brands of Fascism - Nazism and Communism. But just as in previous cases, the root of the problem is some totalitarian ideology, absolutely intolerant of us and insisting on our utter destruction.

No offence, but your entire rant is based completely on ignorance. While I appreciate what you're saying about the Canadian 'attitude', Americans have their own.

For starters;

a) 'Canada's an insignificant and Cowardly Country;' Read a history book. Tell me what the US was doing from 1939 - 1942 when Canada was fighting Germans. If that's 'too long ago' for you, in case you hadn't noticed, Canada's taking over the leadership role in Afghanistan soon. Canadian snipers were highly valued during the initial invasion of Afghanistan, and are highly regarded as some of the best trained troops in the world. If your problem is with Canada not supporting the Invasion of Iraq, then I guess most of the world is 'cowardly'. Despite having 1/10th of the population of the US, we hold our own.

b)'Islamofascism'; Islamic Fundamentalism isn't about wiping out all non-muslim life. It's reactionary to western involvement in the middle-east. If the US wasn't supporting dictatorial governments in the middle-east in order to keep the price of fuel low, you wouldn't have these groups attacking the US. Do you think 9/11 happened because Osama doesn't dig rock'n'roll?

c) 'Canada's economy would collapse if the US closed the border'; I suppose the US doesn't want Canadian resources anymore? Free Trade was just as beneficial to the US as it was to Canada. Free Trade and Open Borders with Canada was about allowing Americans to buy and own Canadian businesses (and vice versa). It's a two-way street. The Northern States are just as upset about tightening that border as Canada is.

Regarding the OP: Pacifism is unrealistic. Any suggestion that one can maintain an army and 'enforce' pacifism, doesn't have a clue what pacifism is about.

So you wouldnt mind if I kill you then?
I suppose not if we were on opposing sides of a battlefield.

You know, I never understood this whole anti-UN thing. Other than having trouble putting their money where their mouth is, their general resolutions are pretty cool.

Yeah, especially those anti-Semitic ones.

As for your conspiracy theory about corrupt dictatorships controlling the UN, here is the list of nations on the Security Council (IE the part that would control military units):
USA, France, Russia, China, UK

Aha, 3 democratic countries out of 5 ain't too bad. Their human rights council is much-much worse.

As for how to get transperancy in totalitarian states (of which there are few of, nowadays), I hear increasing wealth, education, health, and standard of living works pretty darned well. I also hear using the military on them doesn't. You have to attack this problem from the inside out, and that starts with something other than guns.

And where did you hear THAT?! Have you heard about the 20th century? About countries like Germany, Italy, USSR? So you say using military on Nazi Germany did not work, but Hitler shot himself out of desperation over the increasing levels of wealth and health?! What are you smoking?! No totalitarian state in history has ever turned into a democracy without massive lethal violence - and none ever will. It's just absolutely impossible.

Finland, pacifist? You're making yourself look ever more like a typical American with your ignorance of history and world affairs. Finland is one of the more warlike countries in Europe.

No kidding?! The state of Finland participated in exactly one war (I mean an international armed conflict rather than a civil war) - WWII. OK, if you want some nitpiciking, you can further split it into two wars - Winter War and Continuation War. But after that Finland lost independence for almost half a century and was very-very pacifist. And I'll bet you $1000 against $10 that you are orders of magnitude more ignorant of history and world affairs, ESPECIALLY military history.

Well, the core ideas are simples, there are some of them:

- People are brainwashed, since birth, to believe in violence, respect of authority, war, you-or-me logics. Teach them compassion, cooperation, to always question authority, ... and there would be much less wars. It's soldiers who fight the wars, and if soldiers were educated with different values, they would refuse to attack.

This should rank as one of the stupidest ideas of all time. People are NOT brainwashed, this is all simply part of the human nature and you can not change it. Each and every utopian attempt to change human nature inevitably ends up in genocide.

Win what ? You cannot win against a people fighting for freedom. Look at what happened in Vietnam, for example. You can win on a military level, but you cannot win in reality - and sooner or later you'll be forced to give up and resign. Look at Irak nowadays, can you say USA won ? And in Irak, the population is far from being united.

What does Vietnam have to do with your first statement?! The government of North Vietnam was fighting to ENSLAVE the people of South Vietnam. And the fact that the people of South Vietnam lost that struggle clearly demonstrates that you can in fact win against people fighting for freedom.

As for Iraq, the US most obviously and demonstrably won - a government hostile to the US was removed in just three weeks.

Canadian snipers were highly valued during the initial invasion of Afghanistan, and are highly regarded as some of the best trained troops in the world.

Canada was NOT part of "initial invasion of Afghanistan", and I don't know anybody who highly regards Canadian troops. They are few and underfunded.

b)'Islamofascism'; Islamic Fundamentalism isn't about wiping out all non-muslim life. It's reactionary to western involvement in the middle-east. If the US wasn't supporting dictatorial governments in the middle-east in order to keep the price of fuel low, you wouldn't have these groups attacking the US. Do you think 9/11 happened because Osama doesn't dig rock'n'roll?

In a word, yes. Wahhabism emerged well before any Western meddling in the Middle East. And let me remind you that Muslim troops were first spotted near Paris in 732, well before even the Crusades (which were just a defensive reaction), and their purpose was most certainly to kill or convert all non-Muslims. Islamofascism is a totalitarian ideology which wants to control the world - it's that simple.

c) 'Canada's economy would collapse if the US closed the border'; I suppose the US doesn't want Canadian resources anymore? Free Trade was just as beneficial to the US as it was to Canada. Free Trade and Open Borders with Canada was about allowing Americans to buy and own Canadian businesses (and vice versa). It's a two-way street. The Northern States are just as upset about tightening that border as Canada is.

It's not about wanting resources - my point was that an incomparably greater portion of Canadian GDP gets exported to the US than vice versa, and Canadian economy most certainly could not handle closure of the border. Yes, I think it's very important for both countries to keep it open, but much more so for Canada.

This should rank as one of the stupidest ideas of all time. People are NOT brainwashed, this is all simply part of the human nature and you can not change it. Each and every utopian attempt to change human nature inevitably ends up in genocide.

. . .And Selma and Birmingham, Alabama became death camps when?

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a pacifist, but I don't know how you can call war the natural condition of man when 1) war is predicated upon certain necessary material conditions, and 2) our society has solved those material conditions without need for violence. Put more simply, people don't fight when they can get everything they need. Western liberal democracies have largely solved the problem of resource scarcity in their societies. Hence, the rate of violence, even in the U.S., is way below even the most peaceable Third-World nation. If so, then war exists not because it's "natural", but because resource scarsity within and between societies still exists, and the question of the plausibility of ending war becomes one of the plausibility of ending resource scarcity.

Don't mock me. It's sounds silly, but it's the only way. Besides, if we weren't telling the middle east how to live and behave, nobody would want to blow us up.

we didn't tell them how to live before 9/11

if they can't handle our way of life, that's their problem... last i checked we weren't over there in the 80s or 90s making them buy our jeans.

they have a commodity we need (though hopefully that dependence will shrink), and we buy it from them.

That was the only necessary interaction between us -- they give us oil, we give them money.

We have an ally country over there (Israel) whom we try to protect from all of its neighbors, who would love to destroy it. Israel fights against Palestinian terrorists, but they haven't really recently tried to take over neighboring countries.

We weren't telling them how to dress, what to buy, whom to worship, etc.

But there was Saddam, thumbing his nose at the UN, killing his own people, etc.

And Al Qaeda

They prompted our further participation in the region.

In Iraq we've toppled an oppressive regime, hoping that a real free vote would help Average Joe over there. One could say we stuck our noses in someone else's business, but again, it seems most Iraqis weren't fans of Saddam, but had no way of removing him.

Elsewhere we've been chasing those Al Qaeda thugs, killing some, putting others in jail.

While some want to pin the responsiblilty for the etymology of militant Muslim outrage on the West, I think we can chalk up the militant muslims to two main reasons:

a) They're jealous of our success, while they struggle

and

b) They hate anything that isn't Muslim.

Well, I have to say most of the pacifists here are not actually pacifists.

Pacifism is the rejection of violence in all cases... even if your life is in danger, others in danger etc. Non-violent resistance is ok, but no violence.

What you are if you think violence is justified in some cases, such as self defence, or to protect others from a thrid party's violence etc, but you want to avoid it if at all possible, and war is the last resort, then you are a pacificist.

To illustrate, a pacifist could not support WW2, as even though all diplomatic measures had been taken, they cannot support any war, no matter the consequences (though normally they view the consequences of waras worse than any other option).

A pacificist on the other hand could, as all attempts were made to maintain the peace, but Hitler had shown his determination to exert is power over other nations and people's. War was necessary to protect others, and to remove Hitler, as peace was impossible with him, short of total surrender.

we didn't tell them how to live before 9/11. *snip*

It's not really that simple.

- In 1953, the CIA organized a coup to overthrow a popularly elected president in Iran due to his plans to nationalize the oil industry.

- Saddam Hussein was backed and supplied by the United States during the war against Iran. That includes providing chemicals used against the Iranian forces, which were then later used on the Kurds.

- The US continues to show a huge Israel bias in the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. From a muslim perspective, Palestine is nothing more than an Israeli-created ghetto for a people who were driven off of their land.

- Both the US and the USSR used and manipulated different despotic regimes in the middle-east as part of cold-war maneuvering. Look up 'Twin Pillars'.

- Khaddafi was supported by the US during his rise to power in Libya, but the moment he nationalized the oil industry, and the rest of the middle-east started jacking up their prices, the US bombed his house. Libya responded by blowing up a civilian plane. Nowadays, Khadaffi is 'reformed', because the US wants the appearance of compliant islamic states, so Khadaffi plays along - and is back in business with the US.

The west, and The US in particular, has manipulated the middle-east for a very long time, for a very simple reason; to keep oil as cheap as possible. They prevented the rise of democracy on several occasions because it was bad for business. Whether or not that was a sensible policy doesn't detract from the fact that some middle-easterners are going to take offense to it.

Canada was NOT part of "initial invasion of Afghanistan", and I don't know anybody who highly regards Canadian troops. They are few and underfunded.

Canadian forces are few, and underfunded - yes. It's a disgrace, but that has nothing to do with their level of training, which is very high. As far as Afghanistan goes, Canada has had troops there since Feb. 2nd, 2002, hunting down Taliban alongside American soldiers.

Canada's armed forces were limited prior to both world wars as well, but at the end of WWII, it had the world's 3rd largest navy, had provided training grounds for the RAF and special forces (Camp X), and peformed spectacularly in the Normandy invasions (again, I would suggest you look it up.) It's a matter of priorities, and using military force to push Canadian interests isn't how Canada operates. It has nothing to do with 'cowardice', but rather a decision not to get involved in unnecessary foreign wars. (Meanwhile, Canada has major contributions to peacekeeping missions all over the world.)

In a word, yes. Wahhabism emerged well before any Western meddling in the Middle East. And let me remind you that Muslim troops were first spotted near Paris in 732, well before even the Crusades (which were just a defensive reaction), and their purpose was most certainly to kill or convert all non-Muslims. Islamofascism is a totalitarian ideology which wants to control the world - it's that simple..

And here I thought referring to WWII would be going too far back... 732? Geez. Yes, Islam was largely spread by the sword. However, back in the modern world, fundamentalism largely results as a reaction to outside elements, such as American involvement in the middle-east. People who think that terrorists are out to iradicate all non-muslim life simply because they aren't muslims need to go back under the bed until the monster leaves their closet.


It's not about wanting resources - my point was that an incomparably greater portion of Canadian GDP gets exported to the US than vice versa, and Canadian economy most certainly could not handle closure of the border. Yes, I think it's very important for both countries to keep it open, but much more so for Canada.

Yes, trade is important between the two countries. But 25% of America's population (the amount of America's trade belonging to Canada) is a hell of a lot more people at stake than 70% of our 30 million. Plus, unless you've forgotten, Canada has the 2nd largest Oil reserves only after Saudi Arabia. Closing the border does no good for either party.

. . .And Selma and Birmingham, Alabama became death camps when?

When did anybody seriously try to change human nature there?!

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a pacifist, but I don't know how you can call war the natural condition of man when 1) war is predicated upon certain necessary material conditions, and 2) our society has solved those material conditions without need for violence. Put more simply, people don't fight when they can get everything they need.

This is nonsense. Besides material conditions, people need a lot of intangble things - like honor. People will fight for religion, for honor, for power for the sake of power... The Arabs would fight us even if they had 100 times more of everything. Because not only they have aggressive expansionist religion totally incompatible with modernity, but also have a primitive "shame avoidance" culture where the top priority is avoiding "shame" (just watch how frequently they murder their daughters and sisters for "shaming" the family) and accumulating "honor". The amazing superiority of Western Civilization is a great affront to the Arab honor, so they will fight it until either they destroy it (with unwitting help from multicultarists, pacifists and other suicidal idiots in the West) or their own culture radically changes. Our current struggle in Iraq is a humane attempt to cause the latter, by the way, and failure will inevitably mean thermonuclear war (that's something for pacifists to keep in mind - before calling for withdrawal from Iraq).

I'm beggining to think that you're just a bloodthirsty bastard. Lethal force is almost never necessary. I'd like to see someone running after being kneecapped.

Midlands is bloodthirsty?

And you want to become so skilled in the art of handling a gun that you can shoot an attacker in the knee, in the heat of battle?

Trust me, you won't have time to aim that well in that type of situation. You will be lucky to hit them in their body, let alone a limb.

That only happens in movies...

When did anybody seriously try to change human nature there?!

When they tried to fiat the "natural inferiority" of the black race into equality of race, or so the thinking on the part of the everyday bigot of the time went.



This is nonsense. Besides material conditions, people need a lot of intangble things - like honor. People will fight for religion, for honor, for power for the sake of power... The Arabs would fight us even if they had 100 times more of everything. Because not only they have aggressive expansionist religion totally incompatible with modernity, but also have a primitive "shame avoidance" culture where the top priority is avoiding "shame" (just watch how frequently they murder their daughters and sisters for "shaming" the family) and accumulating "honor". The amazing superiority of Western Civilization is a great affront to the Arab honor, so they will fight it until either they destroy it (with unwitting help from multicultarists, pacifists and other suicidal idiots in the West) or their own culture radically changes. Our current struggle in Iraq is a humane attempt to cause the latter, by the way, and failure will inevitably mean thermonuclear war (that's something for pacifists to keep in mind - before calling for withdrawal from Iraq).

Really? Then why is it that Wahhabism has only taken off in the Middle East in the last twenty years? Why is it that despite the fact that the Islamic concept of honor dates back 1400 years, we have only been offending that honor for ten? Why is it that the Middle East has only been pushed into Sharia in the last twenty-five years?

The simple reason why is because the economic conditions of the region have collapsed in the same period. Twenty years ago in Saudi Arabia, the median annual wage was approximately $22,000. This coincided with a period in which Sharia was much more relaxed around the Middle East, women in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan wore western-style clothing, and the practice of honor killings had almost disappeared. This standard of living, however, has crumbled. In Afghanistan, what infrastructure existed was decimated between the Soviet-sponsored civil war in the country and the resultant civil war between Pushtun-backed Taliban forces and Ramadi's Iran-sponsored government. In Iran, state corruption and persecution by the U.S.-supported Shah led to an overthrow. In Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism is the dominant means by which the Saudis retain control of the country. In each case, we see religious practices you describe not carrying over from ancient times, but overthrowing Western mores in response to economic hardship. In effect, when your economic security goes out the window, all you have left is your culture, and in this case, you have a culture that violently mixes with anti-Western sentiment because of real and perceived Western exploitation.

Humans aren't ready for such actions, but they all can be if they simply understood that our survival as a civilized race depends on it.

If there is a beast in our hearts and minds, let there also be a god. If this beast allows war to continue in order to establish a poor society in which we turn to violence to keep the whole of it together, all of humanity will fall apart and be nothing more than the wild beasts we are.

If we can take a difficult path and decide that we can settle differences without slaying one another, then we shall be as gods. If you want to be more than a beast, you should understand that we don't have to kill to solve problems.

Canadian forces are few, and underfunded - yes. It's a disgrace, but that has nothing to do with their level of training, which is very high. As far as Afghanistan goes, Canada has had troops there since Feb. 2nd, 2002, hunting down Taliban alongside American soldiers.

While Kabul and Kandahar fell in early to mid November 2001. So it was not exactly the beginning, and I remember how Chretien actually had to beg to be allowed into the war (the Brits did not particularly want him either). Although Canadian citizens actually started fighting in Afghanistan a lot earlier than Feb. 2002. Unfortunately, they were all fighting on the Taliban side.

at the end of WWII, it had the world's 3rd largest navy,

Yes, yes, I always knew that, although you are incorrect - you missed the word "surface" before "navy" (although it should be noted that at that time only about 3 countries in the world actually had a navy). And I can recognize major Canadian generals in WWII from their photos, OK? (that's what playing WWII-based computer games does to you :-) But my point was that AFTER WWII, when a long-term alliance with the US was formalized, Canada has been openly slacking off. With a self-righteous attitude on top of that.

And here I thought referring to WWII would be going too far back... 732? Geez. Yes, Islam was largely spread by the sword. However, back in the modern world, fundamentalism largely results as a reaction to outside elements, such as American involvement in the middle-east. People who think that terrorists are out to iradicate all non-muslim life simply because they aren't muslims need to go back under the bed until the monster leaves their closet.

Arab Muslims do NOT live "back in the modern world". Once again, if by fundamentalism you mean Wahhabism, that sect emerged back in the 18th century and had nothing to do with any outside elements. American involvement in the Middle East has been really miniscule. In fact it is hard to think of any other region of the world (other than, perhaps, Africa) where American involvement was even smaller. America has been involved A LOT in Latin America, in Europe (with violence both on huge scale, e.g. in Germany, including deliberate slaughter of hundreds of thousands of women and children, and quite recently, e.g. in Serbia), in East Asia (including destruction of virtually all Japanese cities, culminating in two nuclear bombings), in Southeast Asia (with hostile governments STILL in power there). Guess what?! Despite visa waivers for citizens of many of those countries, millions of visitors annually, rich tradition of kamikaze attacks against American targets in Japan, etc., not ONE person from any of those regions ever tried to blow himself up in the US! Similarly, everybody (including two-days-old embryos) in Eastern Europe absolutely hates the Russians after centuries of their "involvement" (to put it very euphemistically), yet nobody ever engages in terror against them. Curiously, ALL terror acts against both Russia and the US are committed exclusively by Muslims (frequently from countries that never even experienced any "involvement" - e.g. that Algerian guy who tried to blow up LAX). My job title just happens to be a "Scientist", my PhD is in Physics rather than in some pseudo-science like "women studies", and thus my mind is not flexible enough to bend every argument to conform with the preordained conclusion that everything is always white man's fault, so I'm sorry, but the ONLY conclusion I can draw from the facts stated above is that global terrorism has nothing to do with "involvement" and everything to do with Islam.

Yes, trade is important between the two countries. But 25% of America's population (the amount of America's trade belonging to Canada) is a hell of a lot more people at stake than 70% of our 30 million. Plus, unless you've forgotten, Canada has the 2nd largest Oil reserves only after Saudi Arabia. Closing the border does no good for either party.

Once again, I completely agree with that. My point was that the exact degrees of "no good" are quite different. And anyway, oil is a fungible commodity and we can buy it anywhere, while Canadian auto parts makers can feasibly sell them only to assembly plants in Michigan, and that transaction would become uneconomical for the latter even without any border closings - but just with more thorough border security procedures and the resulting increase in turnaround times for trucks. So it is really in Canadian self-preservation interest not to force us to tighten border security by pursuing some stupid immigration policies, introduction of Sharia courts in Ontario, giving free health care to Al Qaeda members wounded in Afghanistan (yep, if they happen to have Canadian passports, they just go to Canada, get healed, then go back to fight again) etc.

When they tried to fiat the "natural inferiority" of the black race into equality of race, or so the thinking on the part of the everyday bigot of the time went.

And what does it have to do with human nature? There was just a small shift in culture, that's it.

Really? Then why is it that Wahhabism has only taken off in the Middle East in the last twenty years?

It actually started happening a little earlier. And the reason was very simple: oil revenues. The Saudis started pumping a lot of money into spreading their heretofore marginal sect.

Why is it that despite the fact that the Islamic concept of honor dates back 1400 years, we have only been offending that honor for ten?

In case you did not notice, hundreds and hundreds of Americans were murdered by Islamic fanatics before the last 10 years, and even before the last 20. More importantly, Islam ALWAYS tried to wipe out Western Civilization. Arab invasion of Europe started in the 7th century (culminating in 732 - although the Arabs were not kicked out of Europe until just a few months before discovery of America). And the last serious attempt by the Muslims to take Vienna was in 1683 (IIRC). Even after that there was a constant warfare in the Med (even the young US had to send Marines to Tripoli).

Why is it that the Middle East has only been pushed into Sharia in the last twenty-five years?

Oh, really?! And before that, they had what? Jeffersonian democracy and trial by the jury under completely secular law?!

This coincided with a period in which Sharia was much more relaxed around the Middle East, women in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan wore western-style clothing, and the practice of honor killings had almost disappeared.

No kidding! BTW you really have to settle on some particular explanation - e.g. the Shah was overthrown (because that idiot Carter permitted it) when oil price peaked.

Humans aren't ready for such actions, but they all can be if they simply understood that our survival as a civilized race depends on it.

No, it does not.

If we can take a difficult path and decide that we can settle differences without slaying one another, then we shall be as gods.

You can decide all you want, but some differences just can't be settled without a lot of killing.

No, it does not.



You can decide all you want, but some differences just can't be settled without a lot of killing.


Such limited thought, liberate your mind. Do you truly believe that we are indeed civilized while we hold each other's head as trophies?

Differences are meant to be settled and forgotten, once every human can understand the need to survive. Unfortunately, this is not the case....I understand that you see things as they are....

No totalitarian state in history has ever turned into a democracy without massive lethal violence - and none ever will. It's just absolutely impossible.

Except for India, every indigenous government in the world, and almost the entire continent of Africa. And this all happened within the past century. So what's this about "welcome to the 20th century"? And what was the common thread running through each of these revolutions?

Such limited thought, liberate your mind. Do you truly believe that we are indeed civilized while we hold each other's head as trophies?

Yes. Besides, there are more important things than survival.

Except for India, every indigenous government in the world, and almost the entire continent of Africa. And this all happened within the past century. So what's this about "welcome to the 20th century"? And what was the common thread running through each of these revolutions?

India never was a totalitarian state, and I'm not aware of any totalitarian African state that became a true democracy. History has never seen a succesful democratic revolution (not backed up by external military might) in a totalitarian state. While it has seen quite a few of them crumbling under military pressure. Does the name "Hitler" ring a bell?!

Could you please stop insulting everybody's intelligence? "War never solved anything" and "violence begets violence" are not even cliches (I have nothing against useful cliches), but rather ridiculous absurdities at odds with overwhelming facts. Look, unless the totalitarian regime was established by foreign military power in the first place, people living in totalitarian states usually love their regime and won't change their opinion of it unless you slaughter lots and lots of them and thus discredit the regime in their eyes by making it look utterly impotent (carpet bombing of population centers works the best).

While Kabul and Kandahar fell in early to mid November 2001. So it was not exactly the beginning, and I remember how Chretien actually had to beg to be allowed into the war (the Brits did not particularly want him either). Although Canadian citizens actually started fighting in Afghanistan a lot earlier than Feb. 2002. Unfortunately, they were all fighting on the Taliban side.

Canadian citizens fighting on the side of the Taliban prior to Feb. 2002? By that I assume you mean Afghan-Canadians? The U.S. doesn't have Afghani citizens?

I concede the point about the 'beginning' of the invasion of Afghanistan. But the point was that applying the label 'cowardly' when we've had soldiers there for the last 4 years, when it wasn't even our country that was attacked, is unfair.

Yes, yes, I always knew that, although you are incorrect - you missed the word "surface" before "navy" (although it should be noted that at that time only about 3 countries in the world actually had a navy). And I can recognize major Canadian generals in WWII from their photos, OK? (that's what playing WWII-based computer games does to you :-) But my point was that AFTER WWII, when a long-term alliance with the US was formalized, Canada has been openly slacking off. With a self-righteous attitude on top of that.

I concede that the Trudeau era and successive governments have slashed and limited our military forces. Not persronally proud of that. But give me a break, simply because we don't 'toe the line' with every single US command hardly implies 'slacking off'. The invasion of Iraq was plain wrong. You won't find me saying the same thing about Afghanistan.

And Americans don't have self-righteous attitudes? Think again.

Arab Muslims do NOT live "back in the modern world". Once again, if by fundamentalism you mean Wahhabism, that sect emerged back in the 18th century and had nothing to do with any outside elements. American involvement in the Middle East has been really miniscule. In fact it is hard to think of any other region of the world (other than, perhaps, Africa) where American involvement was even smaller. America has been involved A LOT in Latin America, in Europe (with violence both on huge scale, e.g. in Germany, including deliberate slaughter of hundreds of thousands of women and children, and quite recently, e.g. in Serbia), in East Asia (including destruction of virtually all Japanese cities, culminating in two nuclear bombings), in Southeast Asia (with hostile governments STILL in power there). Guess what?! Despite visa waivers for citizens of many of those countries, millions of visitors annually, rich tradition of kamikaze attacks against American targets in Japan, etc., not ONE person from any of those regions ever tried to blow himself up in the US! Similarly, everybody (including two-days-old embryos) in Eastern Europe absolutely hates the Russians after centuries of their "involvement" (to put it very euphemistically), yet nobody ever engages in terror against them. Curiously, ALL terror acts against both Russia and the US are committed exclusively by Muslims (frequently from countries that never even experienced any "involvement" - e.g. that Algerian guy who tried to blow up LAX). My job title just happens to be a "Scientist", my PhD is in Physics rather than in some pseudo-science like "women studies", and thus my mind is not flexible enough to bend every argument to conform with the preordained conclusion that everything is always white man's fault, so I'm sorry, but the ONLY conclusion I can draw from the facts stated above is that global terrorism has nothing to do with "involvement" and everything to do with Islam.

Wow. Another rant. Islamists don't have a monopoly on terrorism you know. They're just 'in fashion'. Perhaps you've forgotten about Timothy McVeigh. What Islamic sect is he from again?

Listen, I realize that fundamental Islamists aren't nice people. I'm not completely naive. But to say that US involvement in the mid-east was 'miniscule', is laughable. Your line of thinking would mean that Islamists will be blowing up Japanese buildings soon because they're jealous of their sucess, and liberal notions. Funny, but I don't believe there is a lot of hatred towards Japan in the middle east. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because the Japanese haven't meddled in middle eastern affairs for the last half century?

Once again, I completely agree with that. My point was that the exact degrees of "no good" are quite different. And anyway, oil is a fungible commodity and we can buy it anywhere, while Canadian auto parts makers can feasibly sell them only to assembly plants in Michigan, and that transaction would become uneconomical for the latter even without any border closings - but just with more thorough border security procedures and the resulting increase in turnaround times for trucks. So it is really in Canadian self-preservation interest not to force us to tighten border security by pursuing some stupid immigration policies, introduction of Sharia courts in Ontario, giving free health care to Al Qaeda members wounded in Afghanistan (yep, if they happen to have Canadian passports, they just go to Canada, get healed, then go back to fight again) etc.

Alright then. Lot's drop the trade angle.

To sum up; I understand a lot of Canadians have a 'holier than thou' attitude, and it's wrong. I think our knee-jerk anti-americanism is our worst national trait. But maintaining the 'Pax Americana' is an American decision. I agree that Canadians can do more to work on continental defence issues. But we're not going to go headlong into every foreign crusade that the US gets involved with.

Canadian citizens fighting on the side of the Taliban prior to Feb. 2002? By that I assume you mean Afghan-Canadians? The U.S. doesn't have Afghani citizens?

I recall only one American fighting for Al Qaeda. And he's in jail now. There were a lot more Canadians (and if you calculate the ratio per population...). It's not a coincidence - the share of Muslims in our immigration is much smaller than in the Canadian, and we also assimilate ours much better

Islamists don't have a monopoly on terrorism you know.

They do - on global terrorism. Al Qaeda commited terrorist acts in North America, Africa, Asia, Oceania... Hezbollah - in Asia and South America. Some Palestinian groups covered at least three continents as well. Can you name any non-Muslim organization with similar "accomplishments"?! Anyway, the point is not really about their methods, but about their goals. IRA and ETA can achieve all their goals tomorrow, and the world will barely notice. But if Islamofascists ever get their way... Everybody will surely notice, and I mean literally everybody in the world.

But to say that US involvement in the mid-east was 'miniscule', is laughable.

Once again, MUCH smaller than in Latin America or Europe. Moreover, there's a lot of intense anti-Americanism in both places. But somehow those hundreds of millions of aggrieved folks can not muster a single terrorist attack against the US. But OK. Here's another angle. If we surely must have done something to the Arabs to make them hate us, then I'd love to hear what EXACTLY the Jews did to the Germans to make them hate them so much. If the current jihad against us is somehow our own fault, then the Holocaust must have been the Jews' fault, right?

Your line of thinking would mean that Islamists will be blowing up Japanese buildings soon because they're jealous of their sucess, and liberal notions. Funny, but I don't believe there is a lot of hatred towards Japan in the middle east. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because the Japanese haven't meddled in middle eastern affairs for the last half century?

Japanese are (mostly) not Christians. That (along with them being #2, not #1) gets them off the hook for a while. But not forever. But now that you mentioned Japan, they actually did a lot of really horrible things to the Chinese not that long ago. How come A billion and a quarter Chinese have not yet produced a single anti-Japanese terrorist?! Mind you, Chinese students love to go to noisy anti-Japanese demonstrations at the slightest provocation. Somehow they never go any further than that. And it's not just the matter of the omnipotent Chicom security organs preventing that - there are tens of millions of Chinese in Taiwan, Singapore and other countries, as well as a lot of Japan-hating Koreans.

To sum up; I understand a lot of Canadians have a 'holier than thou' attitude, and it's wrong. I think our knee-jerk anti-americanism is our worst national trait. But maintaining the 'Pax Americana' is an American decision. I agree that Canadians can do more to work on continental defence issues. But we're not going to go headlong into every foreign crusade that the US gets involved with.

Well, continental missile defense is not exactly a foreign crusade. And Canadians could at least refrain from calling us warmongers while taking advantage of it. All I'm saying is that while there's a huge reservoir of goodwill toward Canada in the US, I really don't understand while the Canadians are constantly trying to find out where the bottom is.

History has never seen a succesful democratic revolution (not backed up by external military might) in a totalitarian state.


Thailand went from military dictatorship to democratic constituional monarchy via peaceful revolution (and support of the king).

The topic starts on pacifism and morphs into Canadians vs. Americans....

I consider myself mostly a pacifist. I believe that it is wrong to kill another human being, but that at rare times it is the lesser of two evils.

Pacifism can and does work. One must simply work off the principle that nobody can force you to do anything if you decide that that thing is worse than death. Gandhi knew this. Martin Luther King. Jr. knew this. Both of them were very successful in bringing about dramatic societal change without any violence whatsoever. By their refusal to fight back, they made the oppressor look even worse. I believe you could call them pragmatic, considering the results they got.

How to overthrow a totalitarian regime? One word: stop. If everybody stops going to work, if the people who maintain the country simply stop doing it, there is no way that the government can keep control. There are many people, technicians, low-level bureaucrats, bus drivers, farmers, etc., without whom a country simply cannot function. A government cannot afford to kill them off- this is why, even in the bloodiest strikes, the goal is to intimidate the workers into going back to work, rather than kill them for their disloyalty. Because they are necessary.

Anyone without whom the state cannot survive has the capability to control the state.



As long as the progression into totalitarianism is not yet at the point where the people truly love Big Brother, peace will always be a viable option.

India never was a totalitarian state, and I'm not aware of any totalitarian African state that became a true democracy. History has never seen a succesful democratic revolution (not backed up by external military might) in a totalitarian state. While it has seen quite a few of them crumbling under military pressure. Does the name "Hitler" ring a bell?!

Could you please stop insulting everybody's intelligence? "War never solved anything" and "violence begets violence" are not even cliches (I have nothing against useful cliches), but rather ridiculous absurdities at odds with overwhelming facts. Look, unless the totalitarian regime was established by foreign military power in the first place, people living in totalitarian states usually love their regime and won't change their opinion of it unless you slaughter lots and lots of them and thus discredit the regime in their eyes by making it look utterly impotent (carpet bombing of population centers works the best).

Sorry, I consider colonization to not be a democracy, and it's usually pretty darned "totalitarian", if not downright worse than Hitler or Stalin.

Both American continents, India, and all of Africa were, until quite recently, european colonies. Very few of them fought their way to freedom from their oppressors, a couple in the Americas actually found the colonists themselves fighting for the right to enslave the native populance themselves, and most of them obtained sovereignty through entirely political channels.

Now, I assume your Hitler question was rhetorical, because I obviously know who he is and will readily grant you that he needed to be removed from power, and that it had to be done with a military, without question. Whether WWII would have even happened with a greatly decreased arms manufacture program in place, though, is an entirely different question.

Now let me ask you a question - have you ever hear of Gandhi? I sure hope you are familiar with the practice of nonviolence that converted India from a colony (no rights) to a liberal democracy, inspiring Martin Luther King to finally pull USA out from the pit of racist segregation. Now, what's this about pacifism being useless?

Ever hear of Nelson Mandela? He spent 27 years in jail for his ideal of a free South Africa, eventually becoming the first democratically elected president of south africa.

Here'a a map of what the world looked like before the wave of decolonization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Colonization_1945.png

Look, I'm not trying to convince you that war should never have to be a solution to anything (even though that pretty much sums up my point of view, I know you'll never buy it, so I'll save us both the trouble). What I KNOW we both believe is that peace is preferable to war. You seem to think that pacifism has never accomplished anything. Well, when you take a look at the fellows I listed - Mandela, Gandhi, and King - I think you'll find that these people were far cry from the "cowards" that you warhawks typically portray them as. They are true patriots, amazing individuals, and perfect testimony for the case of nonviolence. I will not stand for you to say that they amounted to nothing.

Thailand went from military dictatorship to democratic constituional monarchy via peaceful revolution (and support of the king).

Thailand was not a totalitarian state. No military dictatorship is - because it's not powerful enough. You need to have a party of a fascist type (e.g. Communist, Nazi, Fascist) to run a totalitarian state.

You need popular support for a totalitarian state. And as long as the populace supports their government, it will be very difficult to overthrow by any means.

And Sir Darwin is right-- it took a hell of a lot more guts for people like Gandhi to sit there while police beat them than it does to sit in a trench with a gun and shoot at someone else.

Sorry, I consider colonization to not be a democracy, and it's usually pretty darned "totalitarian", if not downright worse than Hitler or Stalin.

No, it's not. I.e. not totalitarian and not worse than Hitler or Stalin. So the rest of what you say about colonialism is totally irrelevant here. BTW, decolonization was actually the biggest tragedy of the second half of the last century. Virtually every African country is now much worse off than it was as a colony - just look at all the indicators (well, other than the wealth of African dictators).

Now, I assume your Hitler question was rhetorical, because I obviously know who he is and will readily grant you that he needed to be removed from power, and that it had to be done with a military, without question.

It was not actually obvious from your original statement. Which in fact could be reasonably construed in the opposite sense.

Now let me ask you a question - have you ever hear of Gandhi?

Yes. Some curious character somewhere in Asia, right? What does a guy who never accomplished anything in his life have to do with the discussion here? PLEASE don't tell me he had anything to do with Indian independence! For that the Indians have only Hitler to thank - before popping himself off he exhausted the British Empire to the point it could not go on.

inspiring Martin Luther King to finally pull USA out from the pit of racist segregation. Now, what's this about pacifism being useless?

Again, what pacifism had to do with desegregation?! MLK's strategy only worked because 1) the US had a great political system and 2) the people were basically decent.

Ever hear of Nelson Mandela? He spent 27 years in jail for his ideal of a free South Africa

Yes. But he did not spend a single day in jail for any ideals - he was convicted of deadly terrorism, and he was no pacifist by any stretch of imagination (in case you wondering what racist right-wing source I am using, I heard that all on BBC). Later as president he supported totalitarian dictators and terrorists and flagrantly violated international sanctions (which he earlier used to love when they were working in his own favor), but all in all I must admit he turned out not nearly as bad as I feared (but then again the Soviet Union was already no more).

Well, when you take a look at the fellows I listed - Madela, Gandhi, and King - I think you'll find that these people were far cry from the "cowards" that you warhawks typically portray them as. They are true patriots, amazing individuals, and perfect testimony for the case of nonviolence. I will not stand for you to say that they amounted to nothing.

Yeah, right, Mandela was a PERFECT testimony for the case of nonviolence. Not! And Gandhi was hardly relevant (once again, the Brits overextended themselves in WWII and got really tired of maintaining an empire). King used nonviolence purely domestically (so what does he have to do with pacifism?! - ya know, George W. Bush also came to power through nonviolent means, and so did every president before him, and about every law that we have was adopted nonviolently), and here nonviolence usually works because the system is set up that way.

Yes. Some curious character somewhere in Asia, right? What does a guy who never accomplished anything in his life have to do with the discussion here? PLEASE don't tell me he had anything to do with Indian independence! For that the Indians have only Hitler to thank - before popping himself off he exhausted the British Empire to the point it could not go on.

What Mohandas Gandhi did was to get the Indian people to rise up en masse against the British colonials and make controlling India too difficult to be worthwhile. Any dictatorial power is necessarily interested primarily in self-preservation and therefore will not continue in an enterprise which is not profitable to it.

You need popular support for a totalitarian state. And as long as the populace supports their government, it will be very difficult to overthrow by any means.

Yes, as the Nazi example shows, it's doable.

And Sir Darwin is right-- it took a hell of a lot more guts for people like Gandhi to sit there while police beat them than it does to sit in a trench with a gun and shoot at someone else.

(Sigh). Yet another lecture from somebody who's never lived in a totalitarian state. I know from f&#king personal experience that the former in fact requires INFINITELY LESS courage than the latter (unless you are dealing with a really brutal regime - and no, not even every totalitarian regime qualifies). So I have an enormous automatic respect for anybody firing a gun on my behalf, while my respect for protesters ranges from negative to enormous depending on the circumstances.

What Mohandas Gandhi did was to get the Indian people to rise up en masse against the British colonials and make controlling India too difficult to be worthwhile. Any dictatorial power is necessarily interested primarily in self-preservation and therefore will not continue in an enterprise which is not profitable to it.

Any dictatorial power would have whacked him without even thinking, and that would have been the end of it. The whole point is that in July 1945 the British people most definitely demonstrated that their heart was no longer in the imperial enterprise. Anyway, he miserably failed to prevent or stop partition of India, massive sectarian violence and war between India and Pakistan. So what he actually proved is that nonviolent means work when you deal with nice people (what an Earth-shattering discovery!) and don't work when you deal with not so nice people.

Pacifism is the worst idea ever, fully comparable with the idiotic idea of war. Humanity has never been at peace and at any given time there are bound to be dozens (hundreds?) of armed conflicts all over the globe. The idea of some fluffy world-wide peace is just so dumb it makes me chuckle.

That said...war is a really bad idea, ofcourse. Genocide, mass destruction and chemical/bacterial/atomic weapons are so nasty they can scare the shit out of the bravest person. But pacifism is a loosers way. If all nations would disarm and all armies would be disbanded you can bet your ass there would be someone who decided that the time to invade the rest of the world is ripe. The natural state of humans is conflict/competition/war. It's what we do all day long, all the time of the year and on different scales. The only thing that has worked somewhat well against preventing wars is power balance. If my antagonist is likely to hurt me back real good, should I invade, I'm less likely to go ahead. The war-deterring factor could be other things than the risk of armed respone ofcourse...could be lost trade and many other things. But I believe the balance still needs to be there.

If my nation, Sweden, would be attacked by...uhm...armed forces from some big, unstable, backwards, developing country, with formerly red flags, from the east and some guy/girl claims he/she wont defend our nation because he/she is a pacifist I'd stand in line to shoot the bugger myself. Now and then freedom needs to be defended, unfortunatly the cost is not unknown to be in blood.

So, all in all...I'm against agressive use of nations armed forces but see great use for them in strictly defense only. The one things we really must do is get rid of nukes. Nukes are the worst thingie ever. Even worse than Bush junior (this far).

*edit*
Spelling, still not used to type on my laptop :(

As to self-defense, that only applies if someone is actually attempting to kill you. Is a so-called Islamo-Facist currently pointing a gun at your head and threatening to pull the trigger?

So Islam-inspired bombers board trains and blow them up (Madrid, London) or fly planes into tower blocks and, because they're not directly threatening me, I'm not allowed to condemn their actions? And secondly, I'm not allowed to support a government that wants to take action to disrupt their networks, prevent recruitment and dismantle their capability to take action?

You're not living in the real world.

And you want to become so skilled in the art of handling a gun that you can shoot an attacker in the knee, in the heat of battle?

If you own a gun you should know how to use it properly. Not too much to ask, really.

Maybe we could teach everyone love and understanding, instead of hatred and fear.
Hells yeah!

Just because it's not a "pragmatic" or "realistic" goal doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards peace. What the hell kind of view is that? "It won't work, so let's not try!" Great.

Ultimately, you've just got to hope there comes a day when the power of love will overcome the love of power. :(

While Kabul and Kandahar fell in early to mid November 2001. So it was not exactly the beginning, and I remember how Chretien actually had to beg to be allowed into the war (the Brits did not particularly want him either). Although Canadian citizens actually started fighting in Afghanistan a lot earlier than Feb. 2002. Unfortunately, they were all fighting on the Taliban side.
Let's see, Chretien hates America and said that he deserved 9/11, yet he sent troops to help America in Afghanistan?

The only westerner who fought for the Taliban was an American.

Oh, really?! And before that, they had what? Jeffersonian democracy and trial by the jury under completely secular law?!
No, before the dominance of religious ideologies there, the popular ideology was secularist pan-Arab socialism.

You can decide all you want, but some differences just can't be settled without a lot of killing.
It is this mindset that leads to a lot of killing where there is no need for it.

India never was a totalitarian state, and I'm not aware of any totalitarian African state that became a true democracy.
India was once ruled by the British. The Indians had no say. Around 33 African countries have democratic governments. South Africa is the most obvious answer.

History has never seen a succesful democratic revolution (not backed up by external military might) in a totalitarian state.
What about Romania, Poland, Serbia - indeed all of Eastern Europe in the past 20 years?

Yes. But he did not spend a single day in jail for any ideals - he was convicted of deadly terrorism, and he was no pacifist by any stretch of imagination
Deadly terrorism? No. The ANC's terrorism in the 1960s was about destroying infrastructure, not killing people.

The actual change form apartheid to democracy in South Africa was bloodless.

Ultimately, you've just got to hope there comes a day when the power of love will overcome the love of power. :(
I would love to see permanent world peace, but hope is useless without a plan to achieve it.

pacifism is a personal philosophy as much as it is a policy decision. Change must come one person at a time. Ive taken my share of punches without fighting back, and the fight ends quickly enough. All i can hope is those that promote violence begin to see the error in thier ways.
Of course im anti-war at all costs, although I sympathize with those who take the stance of "only as a last resort." But avoiding war should be the final result, not the beginning of widespread pacifism. We cant stop every war that comes up, but maybe one day.


Although I'd consider myself a "hardcore" pacifist, I appreciate the difficulties involved in attempting to bring about the change of our world's attitudes that would be necessary. It seems to me the only way to try to establish pacifism are far-reaching and all-encompassing changes to how we see ourselves and the world. That's a tall order and in a world where we seem to tend towards quick-fixes and winning at all costs, even talking about pacifism will seem out of place.

Are we really willing to put that much time and effort into the kind of detailed discussion this requires? Just as important, are we willing to be open-minded enough to listen to each other's points fairly? If not, all we'll do in this thread is demonstrate the reasons that pacifism isn't seriously attempted in the world.

Based on what I've read so far, the answer is "No". We're just getting a lot of dismissive and superficial postings "at" one another that don't address the issues seriously. This thread is moving towards the "you cannot be serious!" tone rather than sticking to a "how would that be achieved?" discussion about programmes and policies. That's when we stay on topic at all. Not helpful.

One trouble with a question like this is that it requires a long, detailed (and, for non-pacifists, a probably tedious) posting even to start talking about everything involved in trying to establish pacifism as a serious possibility in our world. The only way pacifism can even be attempted is by a carefully designed and meticulously implemented system of interlocking programmes applied comprehensively to international relations, education and foreign and domestic policies. In turn, the preparation for such policies would require a new international willingness to make the sacrifices of narrow self-interest for the greater (i.e. worldwide) good that would be necessary even to attempt to establish a pacifist world culture. As long as we think tribally instead of globally, we can't help meeting someone we consider "other" in a negative sense, and from there violence is a short step away.

Anything less than a full-fledged manifesto will be hopelessly simplistic and won't address the problems. A proper pacifist manifesto is likely to go unread here, or to be sniped at piecemeal without full consideration being given to its interlocking system of programmes. And if we're coming to such a manifesto assuming it's unworkable and impractical, what's the point? The mind doesn't easily entertain an idea that the heart finds repulsive.


IMO Chuugwanistan is essentially right; pacifism starts with people. In that sense it's from the bottom up, not the top down. That's why people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King could make pacifism work when they did, and it's why their movements failed to the extent they did. And that's one of the keys to any attempt to achieve pacifism on a world-wide scale. No one can make the world truly peaceful for us; we all have to make peace happen, first in ourselves, then around ourselves.

On a practical note, I believe pacifism has to be seen to transcend our usual philosophical and ideological divisions. For example, we need to start by accepting that pacifism is our most desirable outcome whether we approach the question religiously or not.

For those who appeal to religious authority, most if not all religions have pacifism as an ideal, although it's become commonplace for "fundi-fascist" extremists to hijack their religions for a "God bless our bombs" endorsement of war -- Bush and Al-Qaeda are equally guilty here IMO. It's time the rest of the religious people simply refuse to acknowledge the right of these people to claim they act as representative members of their respective religious communities. For example, after 2000 years, people calling themselves Christians ought to have gotten to the place where they accept that The Master meant it when he said that living by the sword leads to dying by the sword, and that since his kingdom is not of this world, he refused to defend himself by violence. Even if someone argues that war is the lesser of evils in certain specific situations, he shouldn't forget it's still an evil -- a "sin". War doesn't tell us who's more moral or immoral; only who was more effective at war.

For those who prefer evolutionary terms, here we are with intricate brains capable of great subtlety and creativity, and we still act as though we can make black into white by hammering someone into submission, as though might makes right. I'd say it's obvious that by now we should have evolved to the place where we solve our problems and disputes by using our brains to work out intelligent solutions peacefully, instead of just inventing more more sophisticated methods of destroying one another. It's time we told people who use war as the natural answer to disputes that they're asking us to follow an evolutionarily retarded course of action, and we require something better of them. Even if someone wants to argue that a particular war may be necessary for some short-term aim, he needs to consider that war is still essentially a kind of species suicide that fails the test of intelligent problem-solving: it doesn't answer any questions of who was right or wrong, only who had the bigger club.

And that's http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/tupp.jpg

Peace can only be achieve through war. liberals will never understand this. death brings life

What have "liberals" got to do with this discussion? Do you even know what a "liberal" is -- or can you at least say what you mean by the word? This kind of abuse of language is in part responsible for the need to resort to war. If people in entrenched positions refuse to go beyond labelling opinions they don't like with "snarl words" that have been sucked dry of meaning by long and simplistic polemic use, an increase in mutual understanding approaches impossibility and war is made inevitable.

"death brings life" -- inserting the urinary catheter the way you did gave us all a laugh but doesn't really contribute to the discussion does it? If the point of this thread is to see how many different ways we can find to sabotage debate, then fine, but if it's here to examine the point rationally, wouldn't you contribute to it more by postponing gratification and restricting yourself to serious contributions?

Whatever you may intend, all you achieve is obfuscation.

It's not really that simple.

- In 1953, the CIA organized a coup to overthrow a popularly elected president in Iran due to his plans to nationalize the oil industry.

- Saddam Hussein was backed and supplied by the United States during the war against Iran. That includes providing chemicals used against the Iranian forces, which were then later used on the Kurds.

- The US continues to show a huge Israel bias in the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. From a muslim perspective, Palestine is nothing more than an Israeli-created ghetto for a people who were driven off of their land.

- Both the US and the USSR used and manipulated different despotic regimes in the middle-east as part of cold-war maneuvering. Look up 'Twin Pillars'.

- Khaddafi was supported by the US during his rise to power in Libya, but the moment he nationalized the oil industry, and the rest of the middle-east started jacking up their prices, the US bombed his house. Libya responded by blowing up a civilian plane. Nowadays, Khadaffi is 'reformed', because the US wants the appearance of compliant islamic states, so Khadaffi plays along - and is back in business with the US.

The west, and The US in particular, has manipulated the middle-east for a very long time, for a very simple reason; to keep oil as cheap as possible. They prevented the rise of democracy on several occasions because it was bad for business. Whether or not that was a sensible policy doesn't detract from the fact that some middle-easterners are going to take offense to it.

Thanks for saving me the trouble. The trouble with international meddling in the guise of "diplomacy" is that it so easily starts off an escalating spiral of mistrust and exploitation that can lead to war.

Humans aren't ready for such actions, but they all can be if they simply understood that our survival as a civilized race depends on it.

If there is a beast in our hearts and minds, let there also be a god. If this beast allows war to continue in order to establish a poor society in which we turn to violence to keep the whole of it together, all of humanity will fall apart and be nothing more than the wild beasts we are.

If we can take a difficult path and decide that we can settle differences without slaying one another, then we shall be as gods. If you want to be more than a beast, you should understand that we don't have to kill to solve problems.


Nicely put. Something that non-pacifists miss is that pacifism is more than the absence of war. It's aspirational ideology with the future in mind. I'm not a pacifist because I believe world peace is doable in the next week or month or year; I'm a pacifist because I believe that there is little point to life if I/we don't aim at a much higher standard for myself/all humanity than we currently have achieved. And I don't see any point to aspire to an ideal that I then try to achieve by means of violating it. I don't see being an example of the problem (violence) as a valid way to solve that problem. This was the point Gandhi and King were making: the only way to seek an alternative to violence is to be one. Or as we used to say in the old days, "killing for peace is like f***ing for celibacy".

OTOH, if I can strive to be genuinely peaceful in myself, and then to create peace around myself, and if I can work to encourage others to do the same thing, and if in all this we're trying to make peace by living peacefully, then even while I'm failing I'm making progress towards something worthwhile.

Come on, we understand the concept here; all netizens do. We call it "don't feed the troll".

The pacifist mission (from my point of view) is for the world to be united against the problems that all of us face. Disarming countries is only one of the many steps that we must take.
1. we must first convince the world of the need to unify. This is a crucial step, for if they don't want to be unified, they'll fight against it
2. have one solid mission, such as saving the enviroment. This brings people to work together towards one common goal.
I could go on, but I think that you get the point

What Mohandas Gandhi did was to get the Indian people to rise up en masse against the British colonials and make controlling India too difficult to be worthwhile. Any dictatorial power is necessarily interested primarily in self-preservation and therefore will not continue in an enterprise which is not profitable to it.

There came a point both in the life of Gandhi and that of King when, in addition to the "cost" of oppressing them and silencing them, the outrage created in ordinary and previously apathetic people when they heard of what was being done made the continuation of oppression unworkable. For example, middle-class whites like me ended up being radicalized and going to Alabama and Mississippi and other places to help register Afro-Americans to vote and to help with integration in other ways. The more we saw the more radical we got and the harder we worked. The more we did, the more the news got out to other people who didn't know what was going on at first, and the more other people joined us. That's also how so much political lobbying got done.

As for the ignorant comment that Again, what pacifism had to do with desegregation?! MLK's strategy only worked because 1) the US had a great political system and 2) the people were basically decent. let's have some reality please. At the time Dr King began, our "great political system" officially allowed individual states to treat Afro-Americans as little more than farm animals or indentured servants, without Federal interference. While many of the other states were at least subtle in their discrimination (but just as vile), the segregation laws in the South and especially the enforcement of them were nearly as bad as what went on in South Africa under apartheid. In many places violence against non-whites by whites was unremarkable and usually not even considered worthy of comment, let alone worthy of prosecution. Lynchings, while less common than in the previous century, still occurred all too regularly. Afro-Americans could be, and were, beaten or killed for something as petty as looking at or talking to a white woman. I could go on, but what's the point? This abuse was not accidental, occasional, aberrant mistreatment, it was commonplace and institutionalized throughout large areas of the South.

That also overthrows the idea that "people were basically decent". Even if we ignore the basic lack of decency of the kind of people who could commit such acts, there is also the lack of decency of much of the rest of our country, from those who chose not to notice what was happening through to those who knew but chose to forget what we're all taught in history class, and in effect said, "It's happening in another state, it's none of my business."

Dr. King's NVCD brought about a new awareness in the country, and started a political process that led to things like the Civil Rights Acts and to other changes. He and those with him awakened shame, guilt and eventually outrage in those Americans who had enough conscience to realize that it was our job to become active against discrimination. Dr King had an effect not just in the Southern states where race-hatred was obvious and violent but also throughout the country, where more refined and subtle forms of racism were preferred. He made it possible for us to think again about our attitudes and conduct, and he made it possible for us to change. And that is the fruit of pacifism.

Admittedly, until the American public (and the rest of the world) is educated out of their fear of all things different including skin-colour, the problem won't be fixed completely, but we got past the stage where being black was an automatic sentence of disadvantage and poverty for non-whites. And that's down to Dr King's non-violence.

Any dictatorial power would have whacked him without even thinking, and that would have been the end of it. ... So what he actually proved is that nonviolent means work when you deal with nice people (what an Earth-shattering discovery!) and don't work when you deal with not so nice people.

I guess that's why Red China's attempt to prove you right by crushing hundreds of demonstrators with tanks has only succeeded in creating hundreds of martyrs honoured internationally though largely namelessly, and why the Chinese democracy movement still hasn't been silenced even after 15 years of brutal repression?

Gosh, that worked.



PS - (The comments about how Gandhi "failed" to prevent bloody partition fails to note the actual events of the period, like the fact that he was assassinated at the crucial time by people who wanted the violence to continue. The problem here as I see it is not that Gandhi was non-violent but that the key leaders who took over from him, and his assassins, were not. India didn't need fewer non-violent people, it needed more.)

The pacifist mission (from my point of view) is for the world to be united against the problems that all of us face. Disarming countries is only one of the many steps that we must take.
1. we must first convince the world of the need to unify. This is a crucial step, for if they don't want to be unified, they'll fight against it
2. have one solid mission, such as saving the enviroment. This brings people to work together towards one common goal.
I could go on, but I think that you get the point


Absolutely! And it isn't as though we don't have enough common goals we could work towards, if enough of the world were willing.

Unfortunately, the kind of people who ask a question like this don't realize that peace is more than the absence of [a particular] war; it's the presence of positive activities and attitudes. So we're always stuck with discussions like these degenerating into silly stuff about "what if someone held a knife to your throat/threatened your family/wanted to bomb some building/threatened to force you to be their religion?" Most non-pacifists are so locked into the thought that violence must be used to solve problems that a programme-level (really, a culture-level) discussion can't take place. As long as non-pacifists continue to see peace as a kind of vacuum, this won't change.

What you refer to is the kind of thing I hinted at in my first post: our need to put forward a comprehensive programme rather than some kind of bullet-pointed recipe for instant "peace". As I said there though, I don't see this forum as being a terribly effective place to discuss it.

and it probably is ;)

But I got the idea from reading a book by (science-fiction) writer Joe Haldeman called Forever Peace...

In this book, persons in the military are jacked into a machine that ties their thoughts, desires, entire personalities together for the purpose of remotecontrolling large war-machines. There are different divisions of these machines and differences in the groups which operate them. But in most cases, the group controlling them has to have at least one or two more empathic people for balance (so that the more agressive minds inside the group don't go berserk and use the machines to start killing everyone in a ten mile radius).

I'm not going to spoil the entire book for you, as it is a recommended read ( though hurrying a bit towards a somewhat predictable end), but the idea was that if people could somehow be shown what it is actually like to be another person, to feel that person's pain, to experience their sadness and loss as one would one's own, the desire for war and/or violence would cease to be an option.

I can't remember who said it, but there was someone who said that the true cure for war and violence would be that the person who hits who feel exactly the same pain and the person getting hit, immediately.

If we were all empathic enough, perhaps telepathy is a possibility in future generations ( if we don't kill ourselves before that time), then the mere thought of hurting another would become as alien to us as the thought of everlasting peace is to many of us now...

Having reread my post and realising not having quite rising up to the opening poster's challenge: I believe it is possible for a change to occur in the human psyche that will effectively rule out the possibility of violence, it might be the next step in evolution for all we know, perhaps it could be effected through better education, through a radical change of view on the horrors of war and violence.

Telling people that violence is only natural downplays the tragedy of human suffering imho, it might be true that in the current human brain the instincts that are dormant or in some ways very visible that cause violent behaviour can possibly be overruled, changed or channeled into more peaceful routes...

While this might be unorthodox and farfetched, it is not an impossibility to imagine that we can overcome violence as a people in general. The question than perhaps being asked could be if without violence as somewhat inherent to the human being, we would cease to be human altogether...