Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Innocence Riots
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(3)
Message 241 of 256 (674542)
09-30-2012 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Percy
09-29-2012 7:43 AM


Re: I'm going to regret this, but...
It's an unending chain. Would there have been a Hitler without the Treaty of Versailles that concluded WWI?
But there was a Hitler. Playing the "what ifs" does not negate the fact that Hitler as we know him existed and the Holocaust occured.
And who is to make these calculations that fewer die if we oppose violence with violence?
It is a balance I grant you that. However, the military is not always meant for action, it is also there for deterrence of violence. That is in fact one of the main tenents of the US military.
One could argue that fewer would have died in WWII if no one had opposed Hitler militarily.
So you are saying that we should have just stood by and let Germany needlessly slaughter millions of innocent human beings?
It is inevitable that Hitler would have killed more Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, mentally & physically handicapped, homosexuals, communists, socialists, political opponents, etc if we (collective allied 'we') had done nothing.
Hitler targeted these people before Germany declared war on the US and even before he began his invasions into Poland and France.
Maybe out of Hitler's conquests would have emerged a truly unified Europe in many ways superior to the current confusion of many sovereign powers using a unified currency.
How noble. A unified Europe created by the euthenasia of tens of millions of human beings. Of course the US government and other european powers did the same thing in North America with the Native Americans. It does not make it right though, and I do not justify Manifest Destiny in the least.
Maybe if Germany hadn't been on a war footing Hitler's final solution would have sputtered out. Who can say?
It would have sputtered out when he had no one left but blue eyed little Nazis left. Ever here of Action T4 and the euthanasia of the mentaly and physically handicapped by the Nazis? One of many schemes of terror the Nazis created well before he began his invasions into other countries. Or do you think its 'better' for the human race that we weed out the unwanteds? (this is satirical, I imagine you do not espouse that, but am trying to make a point).
There is a time in place for the military. Again, the main tenant is deterrence. However there is a time to stand up and fight for the innocent.
One of my favorite statements as well:
Edmund Burke writes:
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
However, if we had not stood up to Hitler and other despotic regimes, we would have 'done nothing' thus enabling them to continue their reigns of terror.
As long as their are Osama bin Ladens, Adolph Hitlers, Heinrich Himmlers, Adolf Eichmanns, Pol Pots, Idi Amins, Mao Zedongs, Joseph Stalins, and others who are bent on murdering innocent people to promote their plans of domination there is a need for a military force to deter them. Will we be successful all the time, of course not. However, without the deterrence of force, they will run unchecked.
How do you feel about the police? Do you think the police should not use any weapons? What about SWAT teams? etc. Should we just try to be 'nice' to mass murderers, armed robbers, etc and let them continue killing? Should we not enforce law and order?
Have Americans and other proponents of freedom and democracy always done the right thing? Of course not. However, I do believe inaction can be just as bad or worse. In all cases we should try diplomacy first, but if innocent men, women and children are dying needless deaths at the hands of cruel dictators and despots, action is not only needed but required to put their actions to an end when all other means have failed.
I am as much a proponent of peace as any peacenik out there. But I believe there is a time and place for the military and police action as long as there are humans who wish to harm other humans, but only as a last resort. As a military veteran and Naval Officer, I can account to the fact that 95% of the time, the military is in a state of non-hostility and non-violent action (the general public is usually unaware of the vast amounts of time, energy and money the military spends on benevolent causes such as giving out food and other humanitarian aid). It is the 5% of time that we as the military are routing out terrorists, or other violent actions, that we get criticized for.
I will leave off with a quote from my favorite scientist. I am not using this to promote my position, but just as a perspective of our potential if evey human understood our 'place' in the universe.
Carl Sagan writes:
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 09-29-2012 7:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2012 10:33 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 1:16 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 256 (674550)
09-30-2012 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by DevilsAdvocate
09-30-2012 7:36 AM


Minor nitpick
How noble. A unified Europe created by the euthenasia of tens of millions of human beings. Of course the US government and other european powers did the same thing in North America with the Native Americans. It does not make it right though, and I do not justify Manifest Destiny in the least.
I would call what was done to the Native Americans and by the German's genocide rather than euthanasia. They government put them out of the state's misery rather than out of the victims own misery.
Perhaps just a personal peeve...

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-30-2012 7:36 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 243 of 256 (674556)
09-30-2012 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by DevilsAdvocate
09-30-2012 7:36 AM


Re: I'm going to regret this, but...
As I've said more than once now, my position introduces quandaries for which I have no solution. What I feel to be my important point is that force and violence are too often the resort, and that unless we completely embrace non-violence (an ideal which can be strived for but never achieved) we will far too often continue to resort to violence.
I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring all you wrote about the potential downsides to not responding to violence with violence, but it does ignore the impossibility of predicting the outcomes of "what ifs". The outcomes are not inevitable, as you at one point argued about how many Hitler would have killed had we not opposed him militarily, and you also seem to be mistaking non-violence for inaction.
The human race has explored and escalated the many ways to oppose violence with violence, but I don't believe we've scratched the surface of the many ways violence might be effectively opposed with non-violent means.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify final para.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-30-2012 7:36 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2012 11:40 AM Percy has replied

  
driewerf
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 08-14-2010


Message 244 of 256 (674580)
09-30-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by jar
09-25-2012 7:21 PM


Re: "War"
quote:
Nonsense.
I am saying that "war" is something that can only be done by a Nation State.
I'm saying that "murder" by definition is an unjustified killing.
No individual ever has the right to kill another except when that person presents a direct and immediate personal threat.
Sorry but them's simply the facts.
Did the slaves in Ancient Rome have the right to kill their masters? Free other slaves and killing slave owners that weren't their masters?
Did the Resistance in uccopied Europe has the right to kill German soldiers?
What about the Spanish civil war, where the regular army rose against the elected goverment,and the civilians defended that goverment?
Things are never that black and white.
This is a view with a very narrow minded view. There are - as illustrated above by real cases - where civilians are perfectly entitled to use violence against a goverment - own or foreign.
Edited by driewerf, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 09-25-2012 7:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 09-30-2012 5:40 PM driewerf has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 245 of 256 (674582)
09-30-2012 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by driewerf
09-30-2012 5:23 PM


Re: "War"
Learn to read.
I'm amazed how so many people seem unable to actually read.
I said:
quote:
Nonsense.
I am saying that "war" is something that can only be done by a Nation State.
I'm saying that "murder" by definition is an unjustified killing.
No individual ever has the right to kill another except when that person presents a direct and immediate personal threat.
Sorry but them's simply the facts.
Read what I wrote.
Let me try again.
No individual ever has the right to kill another except when that person presents a direct and immediate personal threat.
Killing and murder are not synonymous.
You ask "Did the slaves in Ancient Rome have the right to kill their masters? Free other slaves and killing slave owners that weren't their masters?"
The answer is perhaps yes, perhaps no. It would depend on the actual specifics of each incident.
You ask "Did the Resistance in uccopied Europe has the right to kill German soldiers?"
The answer is they had the right only if the Allies actually won the war.
You ask "What about the Spanish civil war, where the regular army rose against the elected goverment,and the civilians defended that goverment?"
The answer is that it depends on who won the Civil war.
It is NEVER black and white.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by driewerf, posted 09-30-2012 5:23 PM driewerf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by driewerf, posted 09-30-2012 5:51 PM jar has replied
 Message 248 by Dogmafood, posted 10-01-2012 8:25 AM jar has replied

  
driewerf
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 08-14-2010


Message 246 of 256 (674584)
09-30-2012 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
09-30-2012 5:40 PM


Re: "War"
What?????
You're only right if you win?
What kind of nonsense is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 09-30-2012 5:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 09-30-2012 5:54 PM driewerf has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 247 of 256 (674585)
09-30-2012 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by driewerf
09-30-2012 5:51 PM


Re: "War"
It's a matter of legality and reality, not nonsense.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by driewerf, posted 09-30-2012 5:51 PM driewerf has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 248 of 256 (674623)
10-01-2012 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
09-30-2012 5:40 PM


Re: "War"
No individual ever has the right to kill another except when that person presents a direct and immediate personal threat.
Unless of course the individual doing the killing is the member of a gang, has special clothes and is acting by proxy. In those cases it is somehow magically different.
I really don't see why this standard should not be applied to nations and their armies. In the end there is always some individual who is pulling the trigger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 09-30-2012 5:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by jar, posted 10-01-2012 9:44 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 249 of 256 (674630)
10-01-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dogmafood
10-01-2012 8:25 AM


Re: "War"
Unless of course the individual doing the killing is the member of a gang, has special clothes and is acting by proxy. In those cases it is somehow magically different.
If that is YOUR opinion then fine but I doubt you can show that I ever said that.
Killing and murder are not synonymous.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dogmafood, posted 10-01-2012 8:25 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 256 (674647)
10-01-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
09-30-2012 1:16 PM


Re: I'm going to regret this, but...
The outcomes are not inevitable, as you at one point argued about how many Hitler would have killed had we not opposed him militarily
I'm not sure how many Hitler would have killed, but I can state fairly categorically that I would not enjoy life in a world in which Germany under Hitler had conquered Europe and Russia. It's also the case that the war wasn't fought to stop Germany from killing gypsies and Jews.
And things other than military opposition were tried before war became an alternative to simply submitting to Hitler. Those things didn't work.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 1:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 12:23 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 251 of 256 (674650)
10-01-2012 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by NoNukes
10-01-2012 11:40 AM


Re: I'm going to regret this, but...
NoNokes writes:
I'm not sure how many Hitler would have killed, but I can state fairly categorically that I would not enjoy life in a world in which Germany under Hitler had conquered Europe and Russia.
Aside from the absence of killing and maiming, I don't see why we should expect non-violent means to be more "enjoyable" than violent ones. Taking up arms in defense of family or property or country or way of life costs lives, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but non-violent approaches may mean the sacrifice of everything *but* life. Is death preferable to the loss of everything material and life in a refugee camp?
I think a great many people would answer yes. Until we're willing to sacrifice everything to avoid war then we will continue to kill each other.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2012 11:40 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 10-01-2012 12:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 255 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2012 12:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 252 of 256 (674651)
10-01-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Percy
10-01-2012 12:23 PM


More then just two options
Since it's unlikely that the whole world will suddenly become non-violent, perhaps we can try to take some steps towards moderating violence.
One problem is that the paradigm of Nation State conflicts is changing to conflicts with loosely organized non-Nation State entities and so far we have nothing comparable to the Geneva Conventions to prescribe and proscribe certain behaviors.
In the old paradigm there was at least a formal structure for endorsement, implementation and enforcement of a set of rules like the Geneva Conventions through ratification by a Nation State.
How could something similar be set up though to cover Nation States and non-Governmental organizations bilaterally? Can a loosely organized group ratify such an agreement?
Can we build on experiences such as the IRA and PLO?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 12:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2012 12:22 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 253 of 256 (674736)
10-02-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by jar
10-01-2012 12:39 PM


Re: More then just two options
jar writes:
Can we build on experiences such as the IRA and PLO?
I think the main thing to be learnt from these examples is the need to establish a dialogue. This may sound bewilderingly obvious but the "We don't negotiate with terrorists" approach is usually the first reaction and strongly adhered to.
I'm not suggesting that will be easy or remotely popular. It may not even be possible.... But any hope of an eventual peace between two "warring" groups almost certainly depends on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 10-01-2012 12:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by jar, posted 10-02-2012 12:26 PM Straggler has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 254 of 256 (674737)
10-02-2012 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Straggler
10-02-2012 12:22 PM


Re: More then just two options
I agree, but there is a related step needed. Before dialog could be started with the IRA or PLO it was necessary for the IRA and PLO to establish a recognized organization that actually had the authority to hold discussions and then the authority and capability to impose strictures on their membership.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2012 12:22 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 255 of 256 (674739)
10-02-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Percy
10-01-2012 12:23 PM


Re: I'm going to regret this, but...
If we are looking combat alternatives that are effective but not very pleasant and using Nazi Germany as our example then I have a suggestion. The scorched earth policy adopted by the Russians was highly effective albeit at great cost to the Russians themselves.
Germany needed raw materials to undertake it's war effort and it very effectively appropriated these from the nations it invaded. If the Western nations had adopted the scorched earth policy in the same way that the Russians did it is debatable that, in conjunction with the rest of the world refusing to trade with Germany, they could have continued for very long.
Just an example of a "peaceful" alternative approach that could conceivably be taken....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 12:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by anglagard, posted 10-02-2012 9:21 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024